List projects

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by revealing that it indicates the current session's active project and per-project job counts (queued/running/done/failed), which isn't in the annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences; the first states core purpose, the second adds useful output detail and use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-argument list operation, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when it's useful. The output schema exists, so return-value details don't need to be in the description.

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?

Tool takes zero parameters; schema coverage is 100% and the description carries no parameter burden. The description's mention of output content effectively replaces any parameter semantics 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?

Clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'projects in the job store', with additional detail on per-project workload. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_jobs by focusing on the project-level view, including session context and job counts.

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?

Provides explicit use case: to find the name of work started earlier or in another session. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over list_jobs or list_capabilities.

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