get_project_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a read-only operation and the text usefully discloses that results include projectIds and corresponding paths, but it says nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or whether output includes projects from other users or workspaces.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the rationale for using it placed second. Every clause contributes either scope or routing information.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the resource, the scope (initialized projects only), and the shape of the useful return data (projectId plus path). Minor gaps remain around result ordering and behavior when no projects exist, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filter semantics and instead spends its words on what the call returns.

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?

"List all projects that have already been initialized" gives a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "already initialized" scopes it precisely. The second sentence implicitly separates it from setup_project by framing this as the discovery path that avoids re-initialization, though it never names the sibling outright.

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 states a clear use case: use this to discover projectIds and their paths rather than re-initializing a project. The alternative (setup_project) is only implied rather than named, and there is no explicit statement of when this tool is the wrong choice, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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