List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: result ordering (newest first), the project categories included, and that returned IDs are required by other tools — genuinely useful for chaining.

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 tight sentences; listing scope and ordering are front-loaded, the filter rule follows, and the example earns its place by showing a realistic invocation. No redundancy with the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by saying results carry the IDs other tools need, though it doesn't describe the per-project fields or pagination behavior implied by limit/offset. Adequate for a list tool, with a minor gap on return shape.

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 50%: query and response_format are documented in the schema, while limit and offset have no description in either place. The description adds case-insensitive substring semantics for query, which is more than the schema says, but leaves pagination parameters unexplained, so it only partly compensates.

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 plus resource plus scope: 'List typst.app projects: personal, team and shared-with-me, newest first.' An agent can distinguish this from typst_get_project (single project) and typst_search_templates (templates) without opening a schema.

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?

Explains the filtering use case with a concrete example ('Find my thesis project' -> query="thesis") and states a key reason to call it: it returns IDs needed by every other tool. It does not explicitly state exclusions versus typst_get_project, but the intended context is clear.

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