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 states that no parameters are required and that it returns node/edge counts and domain info, implying a safe, read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose any potential caveats like pagination, data freshness, or whether projects can be empty, so it only meets the basic standard.

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 three short sentences, each serving a clear purpose: describing the function, noting the lack of parameters, and stating the return value. There is no wasted wording or redundancy, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to call it (first), what it does, and what it returns, which is sufficient to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 zero parameters, and the description explicitly says 'No parameters required.' With no parameters to explain, the baseline for a 0-parameter schema is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary detail.

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 begins with 'List all registered projects with basic statistics,' clearly stating a specific action and resource. It also notes that this should be called first, which distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the entry point to discover projects.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to 'Call this first to see available projects,' indicating this is the initial contact point. It implies that the agent should use this before exploring graph-specific tools, but it does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance for a 5.

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