list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns all project names and identifies the default project, which is useful behavioral detail. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature or error conditions, but these are largely implicit for a list operation and the description is otherwise 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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the key detail about the default project. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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, zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states the scope, return contents, and the practical significance of the default project, making the tool well-understood even without annotations.

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?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description needs no parameter details. Per the rubric, 0 params receive a baseline of 4; the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 function with 'List all Langfuse projects configured on this server' — a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_prompts, list_datasets) by explicitly scoping to projects and adding the server context.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but there is no explicit 'when to use this' or comparison to alternatives. The note about the default project provides indirect context (if you omit project argument), but it doesn't clearly instruct when to choose this tool over others.

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