graph.project.list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool lists all projects, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or any other side effects. The lack of explicit behavioral details leaves the agent uninformed beyond the bare action.

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, short sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present (which presumably documents the return structure), the description adequately covers the core action and scope. It does not mention potential limitations like data freshness or whether the list is exhaustive, but for a simple listing of all projects, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage trivially. The description adds value by clarifying the scope ('all projects in the catalog'), which goes beyond the empty schema. Per the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description provides meaningful context about what is being listed.

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 'Lista todos os projetos do catálogo' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (projects in catalog), distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph.project.create and graph.project.update. The scope 'todos' (all) is explicit. However, the description is in Portuguese while the tool name and schema are in English, which may reduce clarity for non-Portuguese-speaking agents, but the intent remains unambiguous.

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 compared to alternatives. With many sibling listing tools (e.g., memory.query, graph.catalog.export_csv), the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, exclusions, or conditions under which this should be preferred.

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