list_forecast_projects

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral details but only says 'list all projects'. It does not mention read-only nature, permissions, return format, or any side effects, leaving the agent with minimal information.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, ideal for quick parsing.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate. It tells what the tool does, though it could provide slightly more context about typical use cases or result scope.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description appropriately states 'List all projects', which aligns with the lack of filtering options. No further parameter information is needed.

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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (projects in Forecast) with context for scheduling purposes, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_forecast_project and list_forecast_people.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for scheduling purposes' provides vague context but no exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like list_project_assignments.

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