list_projects

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

Annotations already provide 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it lists 'details of all projects', which is consistent. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, data scope limits) are disclosed, but the tool is simple and the annotations cover safety.

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, concise and front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose with no superfluous content.

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, read-only, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient information. It could mention that it returns project details for all projects, but it already implies that. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. Schema description coverage is 100% (none). The description does not add semantic value beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 'List the details of all projects' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (projects), making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'read_project' (which retrieves a single project) or 'list_backtests', so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for usage. The description simply states what it does without any comparative or conditional advice.

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