kitty.projects.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that only projects visible to the agent are returned, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it omits other potential behaviors like pagination, ordering, or inclusion of archived projects, so it is only partially transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys exactly what the tool does without redundancy.

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 simple parameterless list tool, the description is adequate. It specifies the scope (projects, visible to the agent) and the action (list all). Since there is no output schema, it could provide more detail about return format, but the simplicity of the tool and sibling context make this a minor gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed given the parameterless schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists all projects visible to the agent, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('projects'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'kitty.project.get' which presumably fetches a single project. The scope 'visible to the agent' adds useful precision.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever the complete set of accessible projects is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like kitty.project.get for single-project lookups, so it lacks an explicit when-not.

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