List registered projects

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a non-mutating enumeration operation, scopes the source ('registered with the local MCP runner'), and states that access mode is part of the result. This is adequate for a simple no-parameter list tool, though it does not mention edge cases or read-only guarantees explicitly.

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 one tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the relevant output detail. No filler or repetition; every word contributes.

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, no-annotation listing tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context: what is listed, where it is listed from, and what aspect of each project is included. No critical information 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description sufficiently describes what the tool returns instead.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('projects registered with the local MCP runner'), and adds the distinguishing detail that access mode is included. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like project_info, which likely targets a single project.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need to enumerate registered projects and their access modes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but with zero parameters and a straightforward list purpose, the usage context is evident.

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