Listar projetos do Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious value with "Não gasta nada" (no credit/cost consumption) and by disclosing the default-project concept, which an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the default-project context and the no-cost note. Nothing is redundant with the title beyond the necessary restatement of the verb.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so by listing the returned fields plus the default-project indicator. Minor gaps remain (no mention of list size, ordering, or empty-account behavior), but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter guidance, and the returned field semantics it does mention (nome, link, data) are output-side information the schema cannot convey.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Lista os projetos da conta no Google Flow") and even enumerates returned fields (nome, link, data), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not name any sibling tool, so differentiation from tools like flow_projeto_criar or flow_projeto_padrao is only implied.

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?

Usefulness is implied by "qual é o padrão usado quando nenhuma ferramenta recebe 'projeto'", which hints at when the listing matters (resolving default project context), but it never says when to call this versus flow_listar, flow_projeto_padrao, or flow_projeto_criar.

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