list_projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope of the results ('all projects you own or have access to') and implies the response includes project_id, which is useful despite being a simple read-only tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and the second sentence adds practical usage context without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and what the agent can expect (project_id). The only gap is the unexplained 'config' parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has one optional 'config' parameter with no description, and the description doesn't explain it either. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, leaving the agent without guidance on what 'config' is for, though the default null allows calls without it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List your Unilytics projects' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it shows all projects you own or have access to, which differentiates it from list_connections and other list tools.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first to discover your project_id, then use list_connections()... and search_console_data()'. This tells the agent when to use this tool and how it fits into a workflow, clearly indicating it is the entry point.

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