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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the result scope: only projects the signed-in user can file pages under, which implies permission filtering rather than a global list. It does not state ordering, whether archived projects are included, or whether the list can be empty, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a zero-param read.

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, no filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the call-order instruction second. Every clause earns its place by either defining the resource or routing the agent to the follow-up 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?

For a zero-param, read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and sequencing, and implies the response contains project names. It stops short of describing the returned fields beyond names, which is the only thing an agent might still want to know.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description still adds cross-tool semantics by naming create_page's `project` argument as the downstream consumer of the returned names. That linkage is value the empty schema cannot provide.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("List the projects") with an immediate disambiguation that projects are folders used to file pages. This cleanly separates it from the sibling list_pages, which enumerates a different resource.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ("before create_page when the user wants to choose a project") and why (to pass an exact existing name). The alternative path — skipping this and guessing a project name — is implicitly ruled out by the word "exact".

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