List projects

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds modest context by disclosing that results are restricted to project roots the server is allowed to read and that saved local profiles are included. It adds some value but not rich behavioral context; it does not contradict the annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence with zero filler — the action, the resource scope, the read restriction, and the profile payload each earn their place. The core action is front-loaded before the qualifiers.

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?

For a zero-parameter list operation backed by a complete annotation set (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and an existing output schema, the description is fully adequate. Return-value details are appropriately delegated to the output schema. The only implicit element — how this feeds into sibling tools — belongs to the usage-guidelines dimension.

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 and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. With 0 params, the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments. No compensation is needed.

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 ('List') and names a concrete resource ('project roots... and their saved local profiles'), while adding a useful scoping qualifier ('this server is allowed to read'). This clearly differentiates it from the file/tree-level siblings (get_tree, get_file, search_project), so an agent can tell this is about enumerating projects rather than navigating their contents.

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 a discovery use case — enumerate which projects are available — but never states when to prefer it over siblings or names an alternative. An agent must infer that listing project roots is the natural precursor to project-scoped calls like get_tree, get_file, or search_project. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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