list_projects

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

The description states it is a read operation (lists), but with no annotations, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or behavior under large datasets (e.g., pagination). It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It could mention ordering or auth requirements, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficient.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the output fields, which is beyond what the schema provides. With zero parameters, this dimension is fully satisfied.

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 action ('Lists all projects'), the data source ('centralized UIForge context store'), and the returned fields ('slugs, titles, descriptions, and last-updated timestamps'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_context, which likely retrieves a single project's details.

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 implies usage for getting an overview of all projects, but it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_project_context for specific projects. The usage is straightforward, but lacked explicit differentiation.

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