List T3 projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes what the tool returns (a list of projects with counts) and implies read-only behavior with no side effects. It doesn't mention pagination or filtering, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb 'List' and immediately states the resource. It includes only useful clarifications like '(workspaces/repos)' and the specific output metrics, with no redundancy or filler.

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 fully conveys what the user should expect: a list of projects with thread counts. It covers the tool's scope and output adequately, and there are no missing parameters or complex behaviors to describe.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics as there are none to explain.

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 with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'projects (workspaces/repos)' scoped to 'T3 Code'. It also mentions the unique output (per-project counts of active and attention-needing threads), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_threads or t3_status.

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?

While it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives, the description provides clear context by describing the tool's output. It implies usage for obtaining an overview of projects and their thread activity, and no exclusions are given. This matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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