project_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the default project and outgoing memory writes, but it does not disclose potential quirks like empty results, access restrictions, or pagination. This is acceptable for a read-only 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second paragraph adds legitimate usage guidance, and the default-project note is somewhat tangential to project_list but still useful context. Each sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is largely complete. It conveys what the tool returns, why it should be used, and relevant project context. Minor omissions like handling of unset MCP_PROJECT or access limitations do not materially impair invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema defines everything. The description adds no parameter information, which is unnecessary here; the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List all projects' with the exact fields returned ('members, memory count, and last activity'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like project_members by emphasizing the all-projects scope and aggregate context.

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 explains when to use the tool: 'to understand what projects are active, who's working on what, and how much shared context each project has.' It provides clear use-case context but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives.

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