wisdom_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation and 'current agent's' adds a meaningful scoping behavior. However, it does not disclose operational details such as authentication requirements, error behavior, whether an empty list is possible, or any effects on state beyond the implicit read-only nature.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, and scope efficiently, which is ideal for quick agent parsing.

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?

The tool is simple, requires no parameters, and the schema fully describes the optional parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what a returned project entry contains or how pagination results appear, leaving some uncertainty about the response 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and cursor) including the default for limit. The description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable because the schema fully covers parameter meaning; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('projects'), and a clear scope ('current agent's'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like wisdom_list_fragments, wisdom_list_tags, and wisdom_list_agents. An agent can immediately understand what this tool returns and who it is scoped to.

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 usage is implied: call this when you need the projects belonging to the current agent. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related tools like wisdom_get_project, wisdom_set_project, or wisdom_update_project, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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