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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the returned payload shape, the meaning of a `null` updatedAt ('metadata was never set'), and the optimistic-concurrency contract with update_project_metadata. It omits any mention of auth/permission requirements or whether the call has side effects, but 'List' plus the disclosed payload makes the read-only nature clear.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the updatedAt contract, then the environment-specific override rule. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition, though the final workspace sentence is dense enough to interrupt scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values and does: surfaces, their git fields, project remotes, and updatedAt. It could say more about the response container shape or pagination, but for a single-optional-parameter getter it covers what an agent needs to call and consume it correctly.

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 parameter self-documents its default, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by prescribing a resolution order for `projectName` (workspace config file wins over the API key default), which the schema does not express.

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 precisely enumerates the resource contents: surfaces (Mobile, Dashboard, Landing, Backend) with git remote, repo path, route group, plus project git remotes. The complementary relationship to update_project_metadata is named, so an agent can separate this read tool from its mutating sibling without opening a schema.

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 an explicit conditional rule: if a `.bilg/bilg.config.json` exists in the VSCode workspace, prefer its `projectName` over the API key default. It also explains the downstream use of `updatedAt` (pass to update_project_metadata). It does not state when to use this versus list_projects, so no explicit sibling exclusion.

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