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 usefully discloses that the effect is gallery-listing only and not deployment/hosting, which clarifies the mutation's blast radius. However, it says nothing about reversibility (unpublish), permission/auth requirements, credit consumption, or what happens to an already-listed project.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation second. No filler, no redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description answers 'what' and 'not what' but leaves all four parameters and the reversal path (codebase_unpublish) undocumented. An agent can route correctly but not call it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters (projectId, title, description, tags), and the description names none of them. The word 'List' only faintly implies that title/description/tags are public-listing metadata; required projectId, tag limits, and length constraints are left entirely to the schema.

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 action on a specific resource (listing an owned Codebase project in the public gallery) and makes the scope clear ('owned'). It differentiates itself from codebase_deploy, though it does not contrast with the closely related codebase_unpublish or codebase_list_gallery.

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 names a case this tool does NOT cover and routes the agent to the right alternative ('this does not deploy or host the site (use codebase_deploy)'). It lacks guidance on prerequisites (ownership/auth) and on the reverse operation codebase_unpublish, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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