list_projects

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies no side effects and 'known to this server' clarifies scope, but it does not state access semantics, pagination, or any nuance about which projects are included or excluded.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource placed first. It contains no filler and communicates the tool's scope efficiently.

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 there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is almost sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool. The only real gap is a lack of explicit statement about whether the operation is read-only and which access scope applies.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The word 'all' reinforces that no filter exists and all projects are returned, which adds useful semantic clarity beyond the empty input 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 clear verb, 'List', and a specific resource, 'all projects known to this server.' It identifies the operation's scope well, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling list tools such as list_workspaces or list_changes.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to enumerate all projects. However, there is no explicit guidance about alternatives like list_workspaces or list_changes, nor any clear 'when not to use' guidance. For a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable but not strong.

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