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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses that only active projects are returned, that results are scoped to the authenticated developer, and what fields come back (IDs, names, slugs). It omits pagination behavior and any ordering/limit, which is the remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then return shape, then the actionable downstream hint about test_mock. No 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is returned, the scoping rule, and how to use the result. Missing only pagination and result-size expectations.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering inputs are available by framing the call as an unfiltered list of the developer's active projects.

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 and resource with scope qualifiers: 'List all active mock API projects belonging to the authenticated developer.' This clearly separates it from list_mocks (mock-level) and get_project_context, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 link between the returned slug and calling test_mock implies a primary use case, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement or exclusion of alternatives like search_mocks or get_project_context.

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