test_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description sufficiently discloses it is a read-only listing operation. It does not claim any destructive behavior or side effects, but could mention if the list is always up-to-date.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and resource with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete to explain what the tool does. Minor gap: doesn't indicate if the list is flat or includes paths, but not critical.

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 schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by specifying the content of the listing (directories with .mob files), fulfilling the need for parameter semantics.

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 'test project directories with their .mob test cases', making it unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like test_run and test_get_active by focusing on listing directories.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings; however, the simplicity of the tool (0 parameters) reduces the need. Implied usage is for initial exploration of projects.

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