list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one useful behavioral trait: results are ordered most-recently-updated first. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, permissions, or whether 'locally rendered' implies only a subset of projects is returned.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and the ordering constraint front-loaded. Every word earns its place with no 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 zero-argument read-only listing tool with an output schema that already defines return values, describing the resource and sort order is largely sufficient. It could still note result limits or whether the list is workspace-scoped, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('locally rendered presentation projects'), and the singular sibling get_project contrasts reasonably well with this plural listing tool. It is clear about what it returns but does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like list_versions or get_project.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_project, list_versions, or get_presentation_ir. The phrase 'locally rendered' hints at scope, but no prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives are stated, leaving usage to inference.

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