projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states 'Read-only, deterministic, no LLM,' explains the semantics of unscoped as GLOBAL, and clarifies that active is the server's own scope with null meaning 'sees everything.' This goes well beyond the empty input schema.

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 dense but efficient: each sentence earns its place, the core purpose is front-loaded, and the special-scope explanations are directly relevant to correct interpretation of results. The read-only/deterministic/no-LLM note is compact and useful.

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-output-schema listing tool, the description is complete: it explains what is listed, what each special scope means, why unscoped memories behave as global, how active scope works, and that the operation is safe and deterministic. No critical context is missing.

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 are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing or repeating parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the project scopes present in this store, with a memory count each.' It clearly separates this tool from sibling write/audit tools by framing it as the map for all_projects search and a check for where writes land.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: to understand project scopes, interpret unscoped global memories, and verify that writes are landing in the expected scope. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the use cases are concrete enough to guide selection.

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