List projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is in the disclosed output contents (indexes, protected names/paths, root types, profiles, Git/exclusion policy) and the remote-URL opt-in constraint. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but for a zero-parameter listing tool this is solid behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first sentence, then usage, then return contents. Dense but every sentence carries information; the middle return-value sentence is a compact list rather than prose padding.

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 must convey return content, and it does so reasonably well (indexes, protected names, root types, profiles, policy). The project-reference convention and remote opt-in are also covered, leaving only minor gaps like result ordering.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this ('No parameters') and adds useful semantics about how projects are referenced elsewhere (unique name, #index, absolute path), which is relevant to invoking downstream tools correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists local projects, profiles, and baseline filters') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_tree by scope (policy/root selection vs. structure). An agent can route between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to choose a root or inspect policy') and names the alternative with its own condition ('use get_tree for structure'). This is direct routing guidance, not inference.

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