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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the returned field set and spelling out the deployment state domain (running/crash/stopped/pending), which tells the agent what state vocabulary it will need to interpret.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the returned fields and state enum packed into the same clause. Nothing is padded and nothing important is deferred.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not restate return structure; with no parameters and rich annotations, the only real obligation is telling the agent what scope of projects is listed ("the caller's") and what state values mean, both of which it does.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly does not invent parameter-like caveats (no filters, no pagination) that would need explaining.

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 ("List") plus a precisely scoped resource ("the caller's kad.dev projects") and enumerates what each record carries (canonical commit, deploy URL, framework, deployment state). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_deployments, list_files, or list_objects, which return different resource types.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: with no parameters and a name/description that reads as an unfiltered list, the agent can infer this is the entry point for discovering projects. However, the description names no alternative tool and gives no conditions for choosing this over list_deployments or get_app_status when the agent wants deployment or status data.

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