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

Annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important hidden semantics beyond those annotations: gameType is the project-wide default perspective at creation, while a character's stored gameType later governs its own animation and turn behavior. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 compact sentences provide the full return shape and the key usage constraint without unnecessary filler. The most important facts about the default project gameType are front-loaded in the second sentence, just after the list definition.

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 list-only with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: output fields are listed and the critical gameType nuance is explained. The only missing element is explicit mention of pagination or truncation by the optional limit, but the schema already documents default 100 and max 500.

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?

There is only one parameter, limit, and the input schema already fully documents it with description, default, minimum, and maximum; schema parameter coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool clearly returns all of the user's projects and explicitly lists the fields returned: id, name, gameType, style, itemCount, createdAt, updatedAt. This also differentiates it from sibling tools like get_project and list_assets by scoping the tool to the project resource set.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: it tells the agent to read project.gameType before generating anything because it is the default perspective for new content. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the sibling list and 'all projects' framing make the intended usage clear.

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