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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds a specific behavioral detail beyond the tool name: results are filtered by caller access. This informs the agent that not all projects may be returned. It does not mention return format or pagination, but for a zero-parameter listing tool, the core behavior is clearly stated.

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?

The description is a single, grammatically complete sentence with no filler. All information is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning. It is minimal yet sufficient for this trivial tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete. An agent can understand exactly what the tool does and invoke it without missing information. There is no complexity that requires additional detail.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (no properties). Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to document.

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 ('list') and resource ('projects') with a clear scope ('the caller has access to'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents or list_epics by naming the exact resource, and there is no ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

The description implies usage: call this to retrieve all projects the user can access. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or specific scenarios. Given the simplicity of the tool, the implied usage is adequate, but explicit guidance is absent.

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