list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state safety or side-effect-free operation. No conflicts, but minimal additional transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no wasted words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and effective.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It could optionally mention what the response contains (e.g., IDs, names) or when to use it, but these are more about usage guidance. The core behavior is covered adequately.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since the schema is empty. Perfectly adequate for a parameterless tool.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' + resource 'projects' with clarification '(hubs / folders)' and scope 'the user can see'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_docs (documents) and search_docs (search), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like fetching project IDs for other operations, nor does it contrast with list_open_docs or search_docs. The description is purely declarative with no contextual cues.

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