List projects

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that it returns projects the user has access to, which is consistent. No contradictions. However, it does not mention pagination or rate limits, which would be valuable for a list operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the optional scope. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple schema (1 optional param), no output schema, and safe annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention that the result is a list, but the name and purpose imply that.

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 has 100% coverage, so the description need not detail the parameter. The optional team scoping is mentioned but adds no semantics beyond the schema description.

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 'all FloopFloop projects the authenticated user has access to' with an optional team scope, matching the name and differentiating from siblings like get_project (single project) or create_project (creation).

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 (list projects for the user, optionally scoped to a team), but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like get_project or whoami.

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