list_projects

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

Discloses a critical V1 limitation (groupId is always null) and directs to full_sync() for real values. Lists return fields. Without annotations, the description sufficiently covers behavioral aspects, though it could additionally note if the operation is read-only or if any rate limits apply.

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?

Extremely concise: six lines with clear sections for category, auth, related tools, return fields, usage tip, and a note. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given zero parameters, presence of output schema (implied by return list), and no annotations, the description is comprehensive. It explains purpose, usage, and a limitation. Could mention ordering or pagination, but not necessary for 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?

No parameters are defined, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline score of 4 applies as per the guidelines; no additional parameter information is 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 'List all TickTick projects (lists)' with a specific verb and resource. It lists returned fields and related tools, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings like get_project_detail or create_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?

Provides explicit guidance on using the returned 'id' as project_id in task tools, and notes a V1 limitation. Mentions related tools, offering context, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives.

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