project_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies that only accessible projects are returned and indicates the output format. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or mention potential limitations like pagination.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The mention of the return format is slightly redundant given the output schema, but it adds clarity without unnecessary bloat.

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 output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the primary action and scope. Minor details like ordering or pagination could be added but are not critical.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate given the absence of parameters. It does not need to elaborate further.

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 explicitly states 'List all projects accessible to the current user,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like project_get (individual project) and other list tools for different resources.

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 for listing projects but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other list tools or project_get. No conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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