list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Wypisz' = list) and specifies the data source ('dostępne w bazie wiedzy'). It does not mention side effects, but none are expected for a list operation. It adds the context that the projects are from the knowledge base, which is useful. No contradictions.

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, compact sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and return fields. No filler or redundancy. The critical information (action, resource, returned attributes) is front-loaded.

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 that there are no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It specifies what the tool does and what fields are returned. The only minor gap is that 'pionu' (vertical) is not defined, but in context of the knowledge base and sibling tools this is likely understood. Overall, an agent can call this tool correctly without ambiguity.

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, so the baseline per the rubric is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It provides a concise summary of what the tool returns (key, name, description), which aligns with the expected output.

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 'Wypisz' (list) with a clear resource 'projekty pionu' (projects of the vertical) and states the returned fields (key, name, description). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes and get_note, which deal with notes, and get_project_status, which presumably reports status rather than listing projects.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. However, the sibling names and the tool's purpose make it implicit: use it to list projects, not to search notes or get a single note/status. There are no usage exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, so it leaves some inference to the agent.

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