list_povio_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 disclosure. It reveals key behavioral scoping: only 'active' projects and only projects 'assigned to you.' It also states the output format (names and IDs). For a read-only list operation, this is sufficient transparency, though it doesn't mention error handling or authentication requirements.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second sentence provides trigger examples that aid an AI agent in recognizing when to invoke the tool. Every sentence earns its place; there is no 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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it does, what it returns, and the scope of data (active, assigned to you). No additional details are necessary for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds context about what is listed (active, assigned to you) but doesn't need to explain parameter syntax. Baseline 4 is appropriate for 0-param tools.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all active projects assigned to you in Povio.' It also specifies the output (project names and IDs) and how it's useful (for posting worklogs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that post worklogs.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including trigger examples like 'wl list' and 'list my povio projects.' It explicitly ties usage to posting worklogs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tools are worklog-related, so the implied distinction is strong.

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