proj_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that kind values are case-insensitive; it says nothing about default limit behavior, pagination, or what 'indexed' implies (e.g., staleness vs. the live project). With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a modest but real contribution.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, but structurally it is tight and easy to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a filtering/list tool with three parameters and 0% schema description coverage, leaving `pattern` and `limit` semantics undocumented is a significant completeness gap, and there is no guidance on result scope or relationship to sibling listers.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It documents the value domain for `kind` (and usefully notes case-insensitivity), but `pattern` and `limit` — including the 500 default and what kind of matching `pattern` performs — are left completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List indexed objects') and enumerates the domain of object kinds the tool operates over, which is genuinely helpful. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbors like proj_search, proj_scan, or ads_list_symbols, so an agent still has to infer which of these listing tools is correct.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no indication of when to prefer this over proj_search, proj_scan, or proj_references, and no prerequisites or scope notes. The agent gets a definition of the tool but no routing information.

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