list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the core behavior (listing projects) and scopes it to the user's account, but it does not disclose potential pitfalls like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. It is minimally sufficient for a simple read-only operation but lacks depth.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently states the verb and object, scoring full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 list tool, the description provides the essential information: what is listed (all Google Flow projects) and for whom (your account). It is reasonably complete given the low complexity, though it could benefit from noting the output shape or any prerequisites.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-related details, as there is nothing to describe.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource ('Google Flow projects') with a clear scope ('on your account'). This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'generate_image' or 'flow_status'.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool compared to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites like connecting a Google account (sibling tool 'connect_google_account') or any exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'list'.

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