list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds slight context by naming returned fields and pagination, but nothing about data freshness, auth, or side effects. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and valuable return content, then adds the only parameter guidance worth highlighting. Every word 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?

For a simple list operation with annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any guidance on the query parameter and does not distinguish from project_overview or refresh_projects, leaving some context for an agent to infer.

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 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters. It only explains offset ('Use offset for pagination'), leaving limit and query semantics unexplained. This does not sufficiently compensate for the absent schema descriptions.

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 discovered projects and includes specific return content (stable IDs, roots, skill versions). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like project_overview or list_files, but the verb and resource are specific enough that an agent can infer the primary purpose.

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 usage context: list projects and paginate with offset. It does notname alternatives or say when not to use, but the listing intent is clear. This meets 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than the higher bar requiring explicit alternative guidance.

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