Listar projetos

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The qualifier 'local' indicates a scope constraint, and listing implies a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, authorization requirements, or return format. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 with no wasted words, and the 'WORK:' prefix provides immediate category context. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful details, so it is concise but not optimally structured for agent guidance.

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 one optional parameter, the description is minimal. It does not mention the status filter, describe the return structure (no output schema), or clarify what 'local' means in the context of the system. An agent would lack crucial usage context, especially given the presence of many related sibling tools.

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 has one optional parameter 'status' with an enum, and the description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate by explaining how status affects results. While the enum is self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'lista projetos locais' which is a specific verb-resource pair, clearly indicating it lists local projects. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like work_list or work_board, leaving some ambiguity about scope. The qualifier 'local' adds a useful distinction, so it's above a tautology but lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over work_list, work_board, or other project-related tools, nor any exclusions or conditions. The agent is left to infer context from the name.

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