list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by revealing the data source (devmemory.projects.json or DEVMEMORY_PROJECTS env), which is useful for understanding configuration dependency. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The Korean parenthetical is brief and adds product context without waste. 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 tool with no params, the description covers the primary purpose and data source. It does not detail the return shape, but the phrase 'returns registered Git projects' implies a list of project objects. Given no output schema, this is adequate, though a brief note on return format would be slightly better.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Description correctly avoids parameter details. Schema coverage is vacuous at 100%, so no compensation needed.

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's action ('Returns') and resource ('registered Git projects for DevMemory'). It mentions the data source, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_all_projects', though the name 'list_projects' implies listing vs searching.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description says what it reads, but does not state conditions like 'use to get all registered projects' or 'prefer search_all_projects when filtering'. The context is only implied.

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