testmo_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output fields and does not mention important traits such as whether the operation is read-only (though 'list' implies it), whether pagination is supported, or whether archived projects are included. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the key output details in parentheses. Every word contributes value 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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose and the return fields. However, it lacks any mention of potential limitations like pagination or authorization requirements, which might be relevant for an agent. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds context about the response structure (id, name, run/milestone counts), which is useful even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('all Testmo projects'), and adds the fields returned ('id, name, run/milestone counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like testmo_list_runs, which list runs rather than 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 verb 'List all' implies the tool is for retrieving a high-level view of all projects, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., pagination, permission context). It relies on the tool name to convey the distinction from siblings.

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