List Logisim-evolution projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that no Logisim launch occurs and that digests are raw-byte based, which helps set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two succinct sentences front-load the main purpose and end with a clarifying note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (list projects) and the presence of an output schema covers return value details. The description covers key behavioral aspects (static, no launch, digest computation) that are not in annotations. Minor gap: 'stable raw-byte digests' is not expanded, but that is acceptable given the output schema.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'dir' has a description); 'limit' and 'recursive' are left to the schema's type/defaults. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, such as how 'dir' is resolved or how 'recursive' affects discovery. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, this dimension is weak.

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 the specific verb 'Discovers' with a clear resource: 'workspace .circ projects'. It adds a distinctive detail ('stable raw-byte digests') and explicitly contrasts with launching Logisim, separating it from sibling tools like logisim_analyze_design.

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 clear context: it's static file discovery and does not launch Logisim, implying use when you need to list projects without executing the application. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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