List projects

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it returns every project the API key reaches, sorted newest first, and includes the key's access level. It stops short of mentioning pagination or exact return shape, but the additional context is meaningful.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states core behavior, the second gives essential domain context, and the third provides invocation ordering. The primary function is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states scope, ordering, access information, domain meaning, and the correct call sequence relative to siblings. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool and understand what it returns.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to describe, and the schema fully covers the empty input.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: list projects scoped to the API key, with ordering and access level. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that a project is the root entity and instructing to call this before select_project, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage context: call this first, then select_project, before querying visibility, competitors, prompts, or sources. It does not name excluded alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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