List open ICC Plus projects

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the listing is in-memory only, includes dirty state, and returns compact summaries rather than full project content. It does not contradict the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys the action, scope, and output content without redundancy. All elements earn their place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is largely complete. It identifies what is listed and the nature of the output. It could be slightly clearer about the exact shape of the summaries, but the lack of parameters and strong annotations keep the burden low.

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 there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no parameter semantics because none are 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?

Description states the specific verb 'list', the resource 'in-memory project sessions', and the contents of the listing ('revisions, dirty state, and compact summaries'). This clearly distinguishes it from tools like read_project or project_status, which operate on individual projects rather than enumerating open sessions.

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 makes the tool's scope clear: list in-memory project sessions. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as iccplus_project_status, iccplus_read_project, or iccplus_query. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated with alternatives.

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