list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no further behavioral context such as whether archived or deleted projects are included, result ordering, or result-set size limits.

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 redundant phrasing; the resource and the returned fields come first. It is close to minimal, though it spends words enumerating output fields that the output schema already documents.

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?

This is a low-complexity, parameterless read tool with an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It is still silent on scope questions an agent would ask before calling it, such as whether all projects are truly returned or whether the list is paginated/truncated.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the schema already closes the surface completely. Baseline for a parameterless tool is the correct treatment here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all projects') and names the fields surfaced (phase, location, planned completion date), so the agent knows what it gets back. It does not reference any sibling such as project_risk_brief, so the differentiation from adjacent project-related tools is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_risk_brief or search_issues, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the word 'List all', which is the minimum implied guidance.

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