listProjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is a read-only listing operation and that the result is project names, which is useful. However, it does not disclose return format, empty-list behavior, authentication requirements, or other potential side effects.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word adds meaning and there is no redundant or filler content.

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-parameter list tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the scope ('all'), and the output type ('names'). It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape, such as 'returns an array of strings', but the simplicity of the tool makes the current description sufficient.

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 has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately does not mention parameters, and the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and identifies the exact resource, 'all build project names'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like createProject, deleteProject, and switchProject without needing to inspect schemas.

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 intended usage is implied: use when you need the names of all build projects. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, when not to use it, or what to do if the list is empty. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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