list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default ordering (most recently active first), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or authentication requirements for a read-style listing tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler; the resource, the allowed app values, and the sort order all earn their place and are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema present (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the essentials: what is listed, for which apps, and in what order. Only the lack of sibling routing and pagination/auth context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema declares 'app' as a plain string with no enum, so the description supplies the critical missing information: the three accepted values ('codex', 'claude_code', 'claude_cli'). This materially compensates for the schema gap, though no default or format notes are given.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List projects (folders)'), enumerates the valid app values, and specifies the ordering ('most recently active first'). This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_chats.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool versus the sibling listing tools such as list_chats, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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