trmnl_project_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the additional signal that results come from a local, saved project store rather than a server call, but says nothing about ordering, emptiness, or what happens when no projects exist.

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 nine-word sentence with the distinguishing qualifiers ('saved', 'local') front-loaded and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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-param, read-only listing with rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient: it names the return value (IDs) so the agent knows it is not getting full project objects. It would be stronger if it clarified that these IDs are the input to the sibling project read/save/validate tools, since there is no output schema to explain the shape.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered listing of everything in the local project store.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a well-qualified resource ('saved local TRMNL plugin project IDs'), which tells an agent both the operation and the scope (local store, not the remote API). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as trmnl_project_read, trmnl_list_plugins, or trmnl_pipeline_list, so it falls short of a 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 states what the tool returns but never says when to use it versus trmnl_project_read, trmnl_list_plugins, or trmnl_create_my_plugin. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no follow-up path (e.g., that these IDs feed trmnl_project_save or trmnl_project_read).

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