List CRUMB projects in the workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying the return metadata (size, modification time, SHA-256 digest) and the root/subdirectory scoping. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond what the structured hints provide.

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 well-structured sentence communicates the action, scope, and purpose without any fluff or repetition. Every element is meaningful and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are already documented. Annotations cover safety, and the description provides the core purpose and typical scope. Minor gap: the phrase 'or one subdirectory' is slightly ambiguous regarding recursion default, but the tool is otherwise adequately described for its simplicity.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'dir' has a description), and the tool description fails to meaningfully explain the remaining parameters. It mentions digest inclusion and subdirectory traversal in passing but does not clarify 'limit', 'recursive', or 'includeDigests' semantics, leaving the agent with incomplete parameter understanding.

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 ('Enumerates') and identifies the resource ('.cru files' representing CRUMB projects) and scope ('under the workspace root or one subdirectory'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like crumb_inspect_design or crumb_analyze_design. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 states when to use this tool: 'so a model can discover projects without being handed a path.' This implies discovery/listing context and is distinct from siblings that inspect, analyze, or validate designs. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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