scratchjr_list_projects

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

The description aligns with the annotations: readOnlyHint is true and destructiveHint is false, and 'List' is non-mutating. It adds no extra behavioral detail beyond the annotation, such as return shape or side-effect confirmation, which is acceptable for a no-arg read-only operation but not enriching.

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 states exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

The zero-parameter schema and read-only annotations cover invocation safety, and the description makes the purpose unambiguous. It does not describe the shape of the returned project list, which would improve completeness given the absence of an output schema.

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 there is no semantics for a description to clarify beyond the empty schema. The no-parameter baseline applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' and resource 'saved ScratchJr projects', clearly orienting an agent to a read-only enumeration action. It does not explicitly contrast with scratchjr_list_assets or say whether all projects are returned.

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?

No when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided; an agent must infer when to choose this over scratchjr_list_assets or scratchjr_get_project. This leaves usage context to the tool name and sibling names.

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