list_projects_for_harness

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that internal tenant, company, project, and user identifiers are deliberately omitted, which is important behavioral context. It also clarifies the accepted forms of company_ref. This goes beyond a simple 'lists projects' statement and helps an agent set expectations.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, the follow-up usage instruction is concise, and the parameter clarification is packed into the final sentence. Every sentence 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?

The description covers the core purpose, the companion sibling, key parameter semantics, and deliberately omitted identifiers. An output schema exists, so return values are structurally documented. The main gap is the lack of clarity about what happens when company_ref is omitted, but this is minor given the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the schema only shows an optional company_ref string with a default and no description. The description compensates by defining what company_ref can be: a returned public handle, an unambiguous company name, or its slug. It does not explain the behavior when company_ref is omitted, but the accepted forms are clearly specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List accessible Lightbulb projects using public harness-safe handles.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic list tools by naming the project type and the handle format. The mention of 'open_project_in_harness' further anchors it as the companion listing operation for a known sibling.

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 clear workflow context: use the returned company_ref and project_ref with open_project_in_harness. It also explains that company_ref can be a public handle, unambiguous company name, or slug, which tells the agent how to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough for correct selection.

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