pvsyst_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key constraint that results are limited to the configured workspace. It says nothing about what happens when no workspace is configured, whether paths are absolute or bare filenames, ordering, or pagination.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a category tag, verb, and scoped resource, with zero filler. It is perhaps terse to the point of leaving gaps, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and a zero-param lister is inherently simple. Still missing is the operational context an agent would want: what happens if no workspace is configured, and how this relates to listing or inspecting variants.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The workspace scoping implied by "configured workspace" is the only free variable and is mentioned.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("PRJ filenames") scoped to "the configured workspace", so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby pvsyst_list_variants or pvsyst_inspect_project, relying on the reader to infer projects vs. variants.

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?

Usage is only implied: listing projects is obviously a discovery/entry step, and "configured workspace" hints at the prerequisite state. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to pvsyst_list_variants or pvsyst_inspect_project as follow-ups.

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