list_managed_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the crucial scope constraint (authored by this MCP, configured workspace), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 zero filler. It immediately states the action and scope, making it maximally efficient.

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 simple, read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. An agent can call it correctly with the provided information, and annotations cover safety. No missing details.

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 and schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details because none exist.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'projects', and a precise scope: 'only projects authored by this MCP in its configured workspace'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_native_resources and list_motion_presets without ambiguity.

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 'only projects authored by this MCP' implies when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The distinction from sibling list tools is implicit rather than stated, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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