List Overleaf projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that archived and trashed projects are excluded by default, and implies that setting the include flags will alter that. This is useful beyond annotations, though it does not disclose pagination, sorting, or return format. Given the annotation coverage, this is a strong addition.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a concise clarification of default behavior. Every word contributes, with no redundancy or filler. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 tool with two optional boolean parameters, the description covers the core behavior (listing projects and default exclusions). There is no output schema, so return format is not described, but it is implicit that a list of projects is returned. Pagination or field details could be added, but they are not essential for correct invocation. Given the annotations cover read-only and idempotency, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 compensate. It directly explains the meaning of the two boolean parameters by stating that archived and trashed are excluded by default, which implies that setting includeArchived=true or includeTrashed=true will include them. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only lists types. It is clear and sufficient for an agent to understand parameter effects.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('projects in the account'), and explicitly notes the default exclusion of archived and trashed projects. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_files, which lists files within a project, by scope. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 a clear usage context: it lists projects and states that archived/trashed are excluded by default, implicitly guiding the agent to use the includeArchived/includeTrashed parameters when those are needed. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., list_files), but the resource name and context make the differentiation obvious. It lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance but is otherwise helpful.

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