list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuine trait – that listing works without an active connection – but says nothing about return format, ordering, pagination, or what "saved/local" scoping means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the discovery verb leads. The trailing "without a connection" qualifier is well placed to convey scope quickly.

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-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials but is thin. It omits any hint of what the results contain or how many, leaving the agent with only the resource name.

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 the schema has nothing to document and the description has nothing to compensate for. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-argument 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?

States a clear verb ("Discover") and resource (saved/local projects, Blender and recipe defaults), so an agent knows this enumerates projects. It is slightly muddled by lumping three different resource types together, which blurs the boundary with siblings like connect_project, but the intent is legible.

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?

"without a connection" implies this is the pre-connection discovery step and contrasts implicitly with connect_project, which is useful context. However, no alternative is named explicitly and no condition for preferring this tool is spelled out.

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