list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it explains the active-project switching semantics, that running servers follow on the next call, that write results name their landing project, and that pulse() names the read project. It omits whether the list itself is read-only or paginated, but discloses the key behavioral context.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded and states the core purpose, but the paragraph then expands into cross-tool narrative (pulse(), write results, case matching) that is tangential to a zero-argument list tool, adding length without directly serving invocation.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies the field names returned (`name`, `memories`, `active`) and the semantics of the active project, which is enough to call and interpret it. It stops short of stating pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully adds case-insensitive name matching semantics that apply wherever a tool takes a project name, which is relevant context even though no parameter exists here.

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 a specific resource (projects in this home) and clarifies the scope that no parameter controls. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_domains, which lists a different resource type, but the resource is stated clearly.

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 describing what the tool returns and how the active project is switched (admin dashboard). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives like list_domains or move_to_project.

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