bdesign_project_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description ('List') is consistent. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as caching, authentication, or rate limits, so it meets the baseline for non-contradiction but does not enhance transparency.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It directly conveys the action and object without any fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and minimal description, the tool provides very little context. It does not clarify what a 'BeatDesign project' entails, what fields are returned, or how results are ordered. While a simple list may not require extensive detail, the description leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully defined in the schema with type, default, and bounds, giving high schema coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's purpose, but 'limit' is self-explanatory in the context of listing. Thus it aligns with the baseline of 3 for well-schematized parameters.

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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (local BeatDesign projects). It is specific enough to distinguish from other listing tools like bdesign_asset_list, though it does not specify any filtering or sorting options.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bdesign_canvas_search or bdesign_asset_list. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions for use.

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