project_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of sharing behavioral traits. It only states 'list', which implies a read operation, but fails to disclose pagination, filtering, required permissions, or the structure of the response. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It precisely conveys the tool's function in five 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It lacks details about return values (no output schema), possible filtering, or edge cases like empty lists. The simplicity mitigates the gap, but the absence of output schema and minimal behavioral info keeps it from being more complete.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no param details, but none are needed since the schema fully covers this.

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 'List all projects for the client' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('projects'), and implies scope ('all', 'for the client'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like project_get (singular retrieval) or project_create (creation).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_get or dataset_list. Usage is implied by the name and sibling context, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, making it usable but not clearly guided.

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