overleaf_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not disclose default filtering behavior (e.g., trashed/archived excluded by default) or any other operational nuances. This is adequate for a simple list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and output fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information.

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 listing tool, the description covers the essentials: what it lists and the key output fields. The presence of an output schema further offloads return-value details. However, it could briefly mention default filtering behavior for clarity, but this is adequately handled by the parameter schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (include_trashed, include_archived). The description adds no further parameter details, so it does not exceed the baseline set by 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your Overleaf projects'), and even enumerates the return fields (id, name, owner, last-updated timestamp). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like overleaf_download_pdf or overleaf_delete_file.

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 implies usage for retrieving an overview of projects, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides enough context for a straightforward listing operation, but lacks explicit guidance.

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