project_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context about returning identity only, not contents. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral nuance beyond the structured fields.

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 description is front-loaded with the core function and then provides essential usage context. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value and the structure is clear, with no wasted words.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: what it returns (identity only), when to use it, and how it complements siblings. It leaves no gaps for the agent's decision-making.

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 are no parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the guidelines, the baseline is 4 since there is nothing to add about parameters. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 description explicitly states 'List every project (slug, name, description)' which clearly defines the action and resource returned. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_create and recall, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides specific when-to-use guidance: before a deliberate cross-project write or project_create to avoid slug duplication, and to check if work already has a home. It also clearly states when it is not needed (inherited project) and directs to an alternative (recall for contents), fully clarifying usage context.

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