Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the auth requirement and the exact failure mode (a call without sign-in fails asking for sign-in), with remediation steps. That is meaningful added context, though the agent-specific login commands are verbose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Usage intent is front-loaded, but the long parenthetical with per-agent login commands (`/mcp`, `claude mcp login`, `codex mcp login`) is disproportionate detail for a tool description and bloats an otherwise tidy two-sentence core.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (per-project asset lists with id, kind, canvas size, last edit, and unmet needs). Combined with the explained auth failure path, it is largely complete for a read-only list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented as a case-insensitive name filter, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource (lists projects, one per app) and enumerates exactly what comes back per asset (asset_id, kind, canvas size, last edit) plus what each project still needs. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like create_project or edit_asset, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a concrete when-to-use: the user wants to work on something already made in appdesigns (change a screenshot set, header/event art, add to a project, see what's missing). That contrasts implicitly with the create/edit siblings, but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.