List Orca projects

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds that projects are "durable" and that the returned id or name feeds into orca_worktree_create, but it does not describe return format, completeness, or ordering.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the downstream usage note is brief.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying that the result is a list of projects containing ids and names, but the existing text already implies that.

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?

This tool has zero input parameters, so parameter semantics have a baseline of 4. The description mentions project id and name in relation to downstream use, though these are outputs rather than parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "List durable Orca projects." It also points to how the returned project id or name is used with orca_worktree_create, which helps distinguish its purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools such as orca_repo_list or orca_worktree_list.

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 implies the tool is used before orca_worktree_create when a project id or name is needed. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over sibling list tools or when listing projects is unnecessary.

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