List SkeletIQ projects

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond those hints: token-scoped visibility, optional filtering, and the multiple-match 'ask, don't pick' policy. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences deliver the core operation, the primary use case, and the ambiguity rule with no filler. The most important 'list projects' statement is front-loaded.

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?

With one optional parameter, full schema parameter coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering side-effect safety, the remaining agent-facing context is exactly what the description provides: token scope, filtering, and multiple-match handling. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents the only parameter fully: 'Filter by name or description. Omit to list everything the token can see.' The description repeats the optional-filter idea without adding new syntax, defaults, or examples, so it earns the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the SkeletIQ projects this token can see' with optional name filtering. It also states the intended use, resolving a named project to an id, which clearly separates it from the design, generation, and critique siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this first' when a project name needs to become an id, and it gives a concrete decision rule: if multiple projects match, ask rather than pick. Since none of the siblings are list operations, no alternative routing is needed.

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