List naming projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is read-only, paginated, free, and requires the naming:read scope. This is a high level of transparency for a list tool, covering safety, authorization, and paging behavior.

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 concise—three sentences total—with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, return fields, security scope, and paging. For a simple list tool with two well-defined params, this is complete and actionable.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the two parameters (limit and offset), including descriptions and ranges. The description only mentions 'paginated' which is a general behavior, not parameter-specific detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 lists persistent naming boards with specific fields (id, name, brief, researched TLDs, chosen name, candidate counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_naming_recipes and create_naming_project by emphasizing ownership and the purpose of recovering projectId.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Start here to recover the projectId for an existing brief' and 'only call create_naming_project when nothing here fits'. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the primary alternative, with a clear rationale.

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