List Session Projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: results are scoped to the current server session, and entries carry initialization state plus an active project marker. It doesn't state whether an empty list is possible or whether the call has any side effects, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope-and-contents statement front-loaded and the alternative tool named second. Every clause earns its place.

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 no-arg read tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is listed, what metadata comes back, and where to go next. Only the empty-result behavior is left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals that no arguments are needed by describing a plain session-scoped listing.

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?

Specific verb (Liệt kê/list) plus a precise resource and scope: novel projects opened in the server session, with initialization status and the active project called out. This cleanly separates it from story_get_project_info and story_set_project.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to story_set_project for switching projects, which establishes the natural pairing. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use or prerequisites, but the context for invocation is clear for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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