List brand projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it thoroughly discloses the read-only nature, no arguments, no pagination, no side effects, and required kits:read scope. This leaves no ambiguity about behavioral traits.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, usage context, and behavioral/scope details. No wasted 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return fields, pagination behavior, side effects, arguments, and scope. For a zero-parameter list tool, this is fully complete and leaves no gaps.

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 has zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms 'takes no arguments', adding clarity beyond the empty schema. This preempts any confusion about hidden or required parameters.

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') and resource ('brand projects'), and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (name, brief, variation count, client share link existence). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on brand projects and referencing related tools like add_brand_variation and share_brand_project.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before add_brand_variation or share_brand_project to find a projectId, and to check whether a board already exists to avoid duplicates. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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