فهرست پروژه‌ها

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior — that projects lacking a project conversation still exist and hold tasks yet are hidden from the web app's Projects tab. That is real value beyond the structured fields, though the typed flag values are not fully explained.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the edge case. There is minor awkwardness in the line-broken flag mention, but no wasted prose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the relevant return fields (ids, colors, members) and the key semantic caveat about hidden projects, so an agent can interpret results correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; nothing needs param documentation and the description correctly focuses on returned fields instead.

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 the specific resource (projects) and scope (active workspace) plus the fields returned (ids, colors, members), which separates it from mizito_get_project. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 explains a nuance in the results (projects without a conversation and why the web app hides them) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never contrasts this with mizito_get_project or mizito_list_project_files. Usage is only inferable from the name and field list.

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