atelierb_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' suggests a read-only operation, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., safety, side effects, errors) is disclosed. This is adequate for a simple list but not particularly rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states exactly what the tool does and nothing more.

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 its simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not detail the return format, but for a list of projects, the expected output is intuitive. Minor gap: could mention that it returns project identifiers.

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. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The schema is empty and fully covers the input surface.

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 'List all available Atelier B projects' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (Atelier B projects), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_components and list_files. The scope is immediately obvious.

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 usage when you need the set of available projects, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For a simple list tool, this implied guidance is acceptable but lacks the explicit differentiation seen in higher-rated tools.

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