ddev_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't describe whether it requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether it's paginated, if there are rate limits, or what happens with no projects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about output format, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a listing tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more behavioral context to be truly complete.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. Baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than nonexistent 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('DDEV projects') with specific scope ('all'), and mentions what information is returned ('status and information'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ddev_project_status' which likely checks a single project, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other listing/searching tools that might exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ddev_project_status' or 'dsearch' tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or any explicit 'when-not-to-use' scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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