List 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 behavioral disclosure. It discloses the sort order (newest-opened first), the exact fields each project has, and the scope (running hyperpanes instance). While it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects, the 'list' verb and the detailed output description give strong confidence, making this above average.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second details the output fields, and the third guides usage with related tools. It is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and free of filler.

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 list tool, the description is highly complete. It covers the output fields, ordering, scope, and even cross-references sibling tools for next steps. No additional context is needed to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to use the output values (id/name) in other tools, though it doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none.

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 tool lists projects (remembered directories) tracked by the hyperpanes instance, with specifics like ordering (newest-opened first) and fields (id, path, name, frame color, lastOpenedAt). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_project, rename_project, etc., by focusing on the read-only listing aspect.

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 this tool (to see the sidebar rail of projects) and even gives guidance on how to use the returned ids/names with other tools like rename_project, recolor_project, remove_project, and open_pane. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the primary use case is well implied.

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