speckle_projects_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the authenticated user and accessibility scope, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe pagination behavior or how the limit parameter affects results, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose and the output schema exists, it lacks guidance on the limit parameter's behavior and pagination. Given one optional parameter and no annotations, this is a notable gap for a list tool, but the simplicity of the operation prevents a lower score.

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 schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The phrase 'all accessible projects' could even be misleading, as a default limit of 25 suggests not all projects are returned without further pagination. This is a significant gap.

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 that the tool lists all accessible Speckle projects for the authenticated user, using a specific verb and resource. It also clarifies that projects are top-level containers, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like speckle_models_list and speckle_project_create.

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 this tool is for enumerating projects as a starting point, and the reference to projects as containers hints at a hierarchy. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as speckle_models_list, nor does it mention exclusion criteria.

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