Describe the open project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Lists' makes the read-only nature apparent and the open-project scope is stated. However, it does not disclose what happens if no project is open or how the listed items are returned (names, IDs, full definitions), leaving those behavioral details unspecified.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. The verb and key resource types are front-loaded, making the tool's purpose immediately readable.

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?

As a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and scope. It doesn't state the prerequisite that a project must already be open, nor the return format, which an agent may need to know for reliable use in a multi-step workflow.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters, and its focus on project contents fully covers what the agent needs to know for invocation.

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 (Lists) and names the exact resources (sprites, costumes, sounds, scripts, variables, broadcasts) in the open project. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_sprite, remove_sprite, or create_project, all of which change project state rather than inspect it.

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 scope is clear: this tool inspects the open project. It gives enough context for an agent to know it should be used when project contents need to be enumerated, and no exclusion or alternative is necessary because no sibling tool performs the same read-only listing. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use when you need to see what's in the project' or naming when not to use it.

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