list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects. It also adds context about discovering identifiers, which is useful. It does not mention pagination or auth, but for a simple list tool with no parameters, this is acceptable.

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 two concise sentences. It front-loads the core action ('List all projects in the workspace') and immediately follows with a practical usage note. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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 has no parameters, a clear list action, and presumably an output schema (as indicated), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does and what users can expect to extract (IDs, names, identifiers), which is sufficient for a low-complexity 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses the specific verb 'list' with resource 'all projects in the workspace', making the operation clear. It also specifies that it returns project IDs, names, and identifiers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project or find_project which target specific 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 description states, 'Use this to discover project IDs, names, and identifiers', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but its purpose is well-defined for listing all projects. A more explicit comparison with get_project or find_project would merit a 5.

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