list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool lists projects in a given environment, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, default behavior (e.g., default env_id of '0'), or return format. Basic transparency is achieved but not enriched.

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 sentence of 8 words, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word is relevant, but the brevity sacrifices important details. It is efficient but not maximally informative.

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 multiple sibling list tools and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, parameter defaults, or prerequisites. For an agent to correctly use this tool, it needs more context, such as the effect of default env_id and the role of agent_token.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameter meanings. It only hints at 'environment' for env_id, but does not explain the format or default. agent_token is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Compose projects', with the scope 'in the given environment'. This distinguishes it from other list tools (e.g., list_containers, list_volumes) and project-specific tools (e.g., get_project). It is specific and 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?

The description provides context for when to use the tool (to list projects in an environment), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. There are many sibling tools, and the agent might benefit from guidance on choosing this over similar tools like get_project or get_project_counts.

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