list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all projects known to this server' implies a non-destructive read and states scope, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, what happens with zero projects, or auth requirements—though these are less critical for a list operation.

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 zero filler. Every word earns its place; scope ('all', 'known to this server') is placed early. Nothing to trim.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema available, the description is essentially adequate. Slight deduction for not noting pagination or volume expectations, but the presence of an output schema relieves it from explaining return values. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. Schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate since no additional parameter semantics could reasonably be required.

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 specific verb+resource ('List all projects') and scope ('known to this server'). Clear enough to distinguish from list_files, list_workspaces, and list_changes siblings since 'projects' is an unambiguous resource. Lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but ambiguity is low for a zero-arg list tool.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. For a simple zero-parameter list, usage is fairly implied—an agent would naturally call it to enumerate projects. However, no context is given about when to prefer this over related list_* siblings (e.g., when projects vs workspaces are needed), leaving room for a routing mistake.

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