moa_projects_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses read-only status, defines scope (every registered workspace and registry project), and warns about the MOAMCP_HOME environment variable requirement with the 'silently breaks' failure mode. This is strong but stops short of describing the return data format.

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?

Two sentences plus a warning. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the warning adds essential operational context. Every clause earns its place; no wasted words.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and a critical environmental failure mode. It is sufficient to select and invoke correctly. Minor omission: no explicit description of return fields, but 'look up a target projectId' implies the output contains project IDs.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is vacuously 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds semantic value by linking the discovered projectId to the workspace path used by handoff tools, enriching the meaning of the tool's output even though it has no input parameters.

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 opens with 'Read-only aggregate for cross-harness project discovery: every registered workspace and registry project in this MOAMCP_HOME' – a specific verb (aggregate/list) and resource (workspace/registry projects). It clearly distinguishes from sibling handoff tools by positioning itself as the lookup step before a handoff.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use it to look up a target projectId before sending a handoff', providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It also clarifies that 'workspace = the absolute project path you pass to handoff tools', which orients the agent to how the results feed into sibling tools.

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