List Litewrite Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the actual HTTP endpoint is a POST despite being a read operation, plus owner defaulting behavior (LITEWRITE_OWNER_ID or 'default'). Auth requirements and rate limits remain unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then usage, then args, then return shape — a clean, scannable order with no filler prose. The Args section does duplicate what the schema already states, which is mildly redundant but not costly.

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 output schema present, the description carries the return contract itself and does so precisely: an array of projects with id, name and optional description/mainFile/compiler/timestamps. Combined with the endpoint and owner-default behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the default 50 and the owner fallback. The Args block largely restates those same facts (the 1-200 range is already encoded as minimum/maximum), adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List projects available in the Litewrite platform') plus the underlying endpoint, and the usage line scopes it to discovering a projectId, which separates it from the file-oriented siblings. An agent can tell it apart from litewrite_list_files and litewrite_local_list without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'discover a projectId before pulling or reading files.' That gives clear context, but it names no alternative or exclusion — notably it never distinguishes itself from litewrite_local_list, which also enumerates projects/files and could plausibly be chosen instead.

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