List AGC projects and apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (results span all projects visible to the credential), but says nothing about credential requirements beyond visibility, rate limits, or result volume. Modest value on top of 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 tight sentences: the first declares what is listed and the fields returned, the second states the tool's role. No filler, and the core scope is 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?

With no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the returned fields and by explaining the credential-relative scope. The only gap is that the `site` selector's effect on results is left entirely to the 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?

There is one optional `site` parameter with 100% schema description coverage including the enum values and the AGC_SITE default, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no semantics about the site parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list AGC projects and the apps inside each) and even enumerates the per-app fields returned (appId, name, package name, device types). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling `agc_get_app_id`, which also surfaces an appId, so it falls short of a top score.

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?

"Use this to discover the appId every other tool requires" gives a clear usage context and effectively positions it as the entry-point tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use (e.g. when you already know the appId and only need `agc_get_app_id`).

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