we_project_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety posture is covered by structured data. The description reinforces this with 'external sources are read-only' and adds the configured-roots scoping limit, which is useful context, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering behavior.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the scoping constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, so it does not reach 5, but there is no sentence that fails to earn 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?

For a list tool with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is returned and how filtering/paging works. It covers only scope and read-only status, leaving an agent unable to infer the shape of results or the effect of the type/limit/offset options.

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 description coverage is 0% for all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden for 'type', 'limit' and 'offset'. It mentions none of them, leaving the enum values (web/scene/video), the 1-100 limit cap, and pagination semantics completely undocumented outside the raw schema.

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 verb 'discover' plus the resource 'projects' makes the operation identifiable, and 'only beneath configured roots' adds a scope qualifier that an agent can act on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like we_project_inspect (single-project detail) or we_project_create, so it stops short of the 5 benchmark.

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 phrase 'only beneath configured roots' is a real usage boundary — it implies the tool will not enumerate projects outside those roots — but no alternative tool is named or contrasted, and no condition for preferring this over we_project_inspect is given. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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