List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output format, pagination, or potential side effects, so it contributes nothing beyond the structured 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the exact function without any extraneous words. It is concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of thorough annotations, and the self-explanatory name, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it does not specify the shape or content of the returned list, which leaves a minor gap for an agent expecting detailed output.

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 and zero required fields, so the input schema is empty. According to the rubric, a tool with no parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description appropriately indicates no parameters are needed, and nothing further is required.

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 indexed projects' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it enumerates projects that have been indexed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like index_repository (which creates an index) and search_graph (which queries), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent decide between list_projects and other tools such as index_status or check_index_coverage.

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