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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Lists') and adds a note about auth (no project_api_key needed). It doesn't describe side effects, but none are expected for a listing tool. This is adequate for the operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and return fields, followed by a usage hint. No wasted words; every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description specifies exactly what is returned (fields) and how to proceed with a project (via get_scaffold). There is no missing information needed to call the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything vacuously. The description adds a clarifying note about the absence of a project_api_key, which reinforces the parameter list. This meets the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 ('Lists'), resource ('saved scaffold projects'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, description, repo, components, maintain state). It clearly differentiates from sibling get_scaffold by explaining the relationship (use projectid with get_scaffold to re-fetch).

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?

Provides explicit context: it lists projects, and if you need to re-fetch a scaffold, use get_scaffold with the projectid. It also clarifies that no project_api_key is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for modifications), but the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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