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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that output is in 'board order' and clarifying the definition of a project. It does not contradict annotations. While it doesn't describe output fields, the annotation coverage lowers the bar, and the added ordering context is valuable.

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 concise two-sentence block that front-loads the primary usage trigger and then provides the tool's behavior and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: when to use it, what it lists, and how it defines a project. It doesn't describe the exact output shape, but for a straightforward list tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly leaves parameter semantics untouched since there are none to explain. No additional value is needed here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it lists the Projects column in board order, defines what counts as a project ('any outcome that needs more than one step'), and differentiates from sibling tools by naming specific alternatives (list_next_actions, create_card). This makes the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage triggers ('when the user asks about their projects, their open outcomes, or which projects have no next action yet') and explicit exclusions ('Do not use for single tasks (list_next_actions) or to add a project (create_card)'). It names the alternatives directly, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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