List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only.' is largely redundant. The description does add genuine behavioral context by disclosing that results include each project's last run and by explaining the API-vs-website project distinction, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or the default 'all workspaces' scope 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?

Two tight clauses with no wasted words and the resource up front. The leading 'Read-only.' duplicates the annotations rather than earning its place, a minor inefficiency.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key question of what comes back (projects plus last run). Additional detail on result shape or volume is not strictly required here.

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% for the single workspace parameter, so the schema already documents it fully (slug or id, defaults to all visible). The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (Lists) and resource (Check'd projects) and even distinguishes two project subtypes (API vs website) with an important semantic difference in how they are exercised. It does not compare itself to sibling list tools like list_runs or list_environments, so it falls just short of 5.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing it over siblings such as list_runs or whoami, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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