list-projects

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior models. The description adds that results are scoped to what the calling identity has access tochers, which is informative, and clarifies the all parameter semantics. No destructive side effects or other behavioral caveats are disclosed, but the annotation bar is covered.

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, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core action clearly; the second offers a usage hint. Slight redundancy with the schema's parameter description, but it does not waste 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?

For a simple list operation with one enum parameter, the schema plus description cover the invocation logic. The access-scope note is an important contextual detail. No output schema exists, but a list operation's return shape is reasonably predictable; overall the description 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 schema already fully describes the type parameter, its enum values, and the default of all. The description repeats this with a user-intent example ('If the user asks to list all projects...') but does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all projects in Infisical') and scopes the action to 'the machine identity has access to', which clearly identifies the operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list-secrets or create-project without ambiguity.

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 states the tool is for listing projects and gives a specific instruction for handling 'all projects' via the type parameter. However, it does not provide when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusions, though the tool name and sibling context make this mostly inferable.

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