list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It indicates a read operation ('List') and specifies the resource type (FCPXML projects). However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, performance considerations, or file system interaction details beyond the directory parameter.

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 short sentence that conveys the essential action and resource with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise and well-structured for a simple listing operation.

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 description lacks explanations of the return value format (list of project names/paths?), error conditions, or distinction from similar sibling tools. Given the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for fully understanding tool behavior.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'directory', with a clear schema description. The tool's description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'List... in directory', so with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all FCPXML projects in directory' uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('FCPXML projects'), and a scope ('in directory'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_clips' (which lists clips within a timeline) and 'list_library_clips' (which lists clips in a library).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. The simple imperative 'List all FCPXML projects' implies a straightforward use case, but given the many sibling tools, some contextual advice would improve the score.

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