List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. The description does add a behavioral detail beyond the annotations, namely that discovery is recursive and that per-project compiled artifacts are surfaced, but says nothing about ordering, truncation behavior when limit is hit, or scan cost.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety note as a brief trailing clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does need to convey what comes back, and it does so at a high level (each project's already-compiled artifacts). Defaults and parameter semantics live in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though a hint about result shape or ordering would help.

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 description coverage is 100%, so root, limit and maxDepth are already fully documented with defaults. The description corroborates 'root directory' and the recursive nature (maxDepth) but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: recursively find .acf projects under a root and list compiled artifacts per project. That is distinguishable from generic sibling tools like project_files or project_inspect in spirit, but it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives among the many project-related siblings (project_inspect, project_files, project_search). The only usage signal is implicit in the scanning behavior.

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