rws_project_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's only added context is the scope word 'confirmed' for foundations, which is left undefined; it says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether all projects or only active ones are returned.

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 with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but nothing in it wastes space.

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 no-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description should at least explain what a 'confirmed foundation' is and roughly what the return contains. Annotations cover safety but not the shape or scope of results, leaving a meaningful gap.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning the description could or should add. The only caveat is that with no filters, the description could clarify that everything is returned unfiltered.

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 (list) and resource (projects), which distinguishes it from the mutating sibling rws_project_create. However, the phrase 'confirmed foundations' is unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot tell exactly what the second resource category is.

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 indication of when to call this versus alternatives such as rws_record_get or rws_get_context, which likely also surface project data. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the tool name.

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