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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the name-to-ID resolution workflow but says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or whether all projects are returned regardless of status — gaps that matter for a list endpoint.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before usage. The enumeration of returned fields is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little and reads cleanly.

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 an output schema covering return shape and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining missing piece — the ordering rule relative to mutation tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself carries the important caveat that filtering by 'creating' does not match every in-progress project. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (DreamAgent projects) plus the exact fields returned (name, ID, type, status, live domain). This is clearly distinguishable from single-project siblings like dreamagent_get_project_status or dreamagent_list_files.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('see, find, select, or check their projects') and a hard workflow rule: always call before modifying a project when the ID is unknown, resolving names to IDs here first. This is the kind of prerequisite ordering an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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