rag_list_projects

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states the basic function without any additional context beyond the schema.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. No unnecessary words 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the main functionality and the parameter behavior, though it could briefly mention what 'available projects' means or the nature of returned info.

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% for the single parameter, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains that omitting projectPath shows current working directory info, which goes beyond the schema's description of 'Optional project path to validate or get info about.'

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?

Clearly states 'List available projects or validate a project path', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'rag_index' and 'rag_search' by implying a listing/validation function rather than indexing or searching.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like rag_index or rag_search. The description only explains behavior when projectPath is provided or omitted, but does not discuss alternatives or prerequisites.

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