list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it does not state whether the list is paginated, sorted, filtered by tracking status, or what access is required. The phrase 'being tracked' hints at scope but leaves most operational behavior undisclosed.

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 compact sentence with the key action and resource front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 is minimally adequate, but with no annotations or output schema it does not describe the returned project fields, ordering, or whether empty results are possible. It covers the core purpose but leaves some relevant context implicit.

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 parameter semantics are inherently complete. The description does not need to explain inputs beyond the empty schema.

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?

Uses a specific verb (List) and resource (Xcode projects) with scope (being tracked). It clearly differs from mutation siblings like add_project and update_project_status, though it does not explicitly differentiate from read-oriented siblings such as get_project_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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use as a broad enumeration tool is only implied by the wording.

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