project_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (list of hyphenated names) but does not mention side effects, authentication, or dynamic nature. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not detailed.

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 concise with two sections: purpose and return format. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Slightly wordy in the return format but acceptable.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description completes the picture by explicitly stating the return type and format. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details and correctly omits them.

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 the tool lists all HoloViz and user-defined projects, specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'projects'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like doc_list, hv_list, and pn_list which focus on documentation items, not projects.

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 explains what the tool lists and includes scope clarification (built-in vs custom), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide scenarios to avoid. Usage context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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