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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the tool "opens nothing by itself," and its return value is a step-by-step procedure with screens, buttons, and fields. The note that Supermove's Developer API is inbound-only (New Lead, Standard Website, Add Survey, Update Project) explains why browser automation is needed. The "checked 28 Oct 2026" stamp is a provenance detail with no decision value, and the description never mentions rate limits or failure modes when the Cloud Browser is unavailable.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the second is a semicolon-chained sentence that packs the return behavior, the no-side-effect promise, and the follow-on tool family together. The closing API paragraph enumerates endpoints and a check date that do not help an agent invoke this zero-parameter tool, so it reads as padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains what comes back (ordered steps with screens, buttons, fields) and confirms no side effects. For a parameterless read tool that is nearly enough. It stops short of stating what to do if the returned steps do not match the live UI, and it does not differentiate from supermove_open_project, which is the nearest alternative for reaching a specific project.

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 schema takes zero parameters at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the call needs no arguments beyond the user's account context. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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?

Names the verb and resource ("List projects") and scopes it to "the user's own Supermove account," which separates it from generic browser siblings. The second sentence complicates the purpose: the tool does not itself list projects but "Returns how to do it in Supermove step by step," so an agent must read on to learn the tool is effectively a recipe provider. That distinction is stated, but it undercuts the headline verb.

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?

Implies the workflow explicitly: get the steps here, "then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Supermove Cloud Browser." That is useful sequencing guidance. It never contrasts with supermove_open_project or explains when an agent should skip this tool and go straight to the browser tools, so the routing guidance is only partial.

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