list_followed_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read-only listing operation (implied by 'lists'), discloses pagination limits ('If pagination limits are reached, the tool will indicate that not all projects could be displayed'), and specifies the return format ('Each entry includes the project name and its projectSlug'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral picture.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Returns' section repeats what's in the initial description, and the workflow section could be more concise). The 'IMPORTANT' warning about not automatically running tools is valuable but lengthy. Overall, it's comprehensive but could be more tightly structured.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides complete contextual information. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, workflow guidance, and important behavioral constraints. For a listing tool with no complex inputs or outputs, this description covers all necessary context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters (empty object), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. With no parameters to cover, this exceeds the baseline expectation for parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('lists all projects that the user is following') and resource ('on CircleCI'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_pipeline' or 'get_latest_pipeline_status' which perform different operations. It goes beyond just restating the name by specifying the scope (user's followed projects).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Identify which CircleCI projects are available to the user', 'Select a project for subsequent operations', 'Obtain the projectSlug needed for other CircleCI tools') and includes a detailed workflow section. It also explicitly states when NOT to use it automatically ('Do not automatically run any additional tools after this tool is called'), addressing alternatives by requiring explicit user instruction for subsequent actions.

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