ftrack_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the operation (list projects) and gives no behavioral details such as read-only nature, return format, pagination behavior, or whether archived projects are excluded by default. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action 'List all projects' and a brief qualifier. There is zero wasted content; every word earns its place.

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, the description is minimal but lacks crucial context: no mention of return fields, default filtering behavior, permissions, or how 'all projects' is scoped. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description alone is insufficient for full understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'limit' and 'include_archived' having adequate descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all projects' with a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical 'convenience wrapper for query' hints at differentiation from ftrack_query, but it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or distinguish from similar 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 implies usage as a simple alternative to ftrack_query via 'convenience wrapper for query', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is merely implied, not explicit.

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