List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are limited to projects with memory and sorted newest first, and the current project is auto-detected. It says nothing about pagination or result shape, but with annotations present a 3 is appropriate.

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 very short sentences with the scope and ordering front-loaded and no filler. The second clause ('the current project is detected') is slightly cryptic about who does the detecting, but it is efficient overall.

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 read-only listing tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, order, and when the call is unnecessary. Only minor gaps remain, such as what fields a project entry contains.

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 100%, with both 'limit' (default 20, max 100) and 'query' (key or path substring filter) documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or filtering detail beyond that, so the schema is doing all the parameter work — baseline 3.

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 states the resource (projects) and adds meaningful scope — only projects that have memory — plus ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from a generic project listing. It doesn't restate a verb explicitly, relying on the name for 'list', but the scoping makes the intent 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?

'Rarely needed: the current project is detected.' signals that this tool is normally unnecessary because the current project is inferred, which is implied usage guidance. However, it never names the alternative (e.g., get_context) or states the condition under which listing is actually warranted, leaving the agent to infer it.

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