project_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool lists projects with specific fields and notes that the default project (MCP_PROJECT) is used for memory writes. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, usage guidance, and default project note. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the list contains, provides usage context, and notes a default behavior. No gaps remain for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (since there are none). The description does not need to add parameter details; a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it meets expectations without additional parameter info.

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 'List all projects' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies the included fields (members, memory count, last activity). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like project_members, which focuses on a single project's members.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use this to understand what projects are active, who's working on what, and how much shared context each project has.' It also mentions the default project behavior. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or contrast with alternatives like project_members, which could help when a user needs details for a single project.

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