list_projects

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses read-only behavior and describes the registry as file-backed. It also clarifies scope by explicitly ruling out creation and receipts. Slight gap: it does not describe the output shape, but an output schema exists, so this burden is covered elsewhere.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: purpose, usage guidance, and exclusions are all packed in efficiently. The most relevant information is front-loaded.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, placement in the workflow, behavioral traits, and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the tag parameter with an exact match description. The description echoes this as 'exact tag membership' and 'optionally filtered' but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List NeedRail projects') and clearly differentiates from siblings by naming get_project, list_needs, create_need, and get_receipts. The optional tag filter is included. An agent can readily tell what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly says to use this to discover project ids before get_project or list_needs(project_id=...). It also states what it does not do (create Needs, return receipts), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction.

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