emergent_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation, and the mention of status and preview URLs tells the agent what to expect. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the optional limit, or whether jobs and projects are mixed in the same result set.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource and attaches only the most relevant result information. Every word earns its place.

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, the description covers the operation, scope, and expected contents. An output schema is absent, so mentioning status and preview URLs is valuable. It could still note the ordering or that only recent items are returned, but the essential call-time information is present.

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 coverage is 100% since the only parameter, limit, has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, so it does not exceed the baseline for a fully documented 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 wording 'List your recent Emergent.sh projects/jobs' specifies the operation and resource, and mentioning status and preview URLs clarifies what the caller gets. This separates it from singular, create, or preview tools without ambiguity.

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 clearly implies a read/recent-listing context, so an agent would know to call it when it needs an overview of existing projects. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like emergent_get_project, but the plural 'projects/jobs' and 'recent' establish the appropriate use case.

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