list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains that links are included to avoid a second call, and describes the related_project field and its purpose. It does not mention any side effects (none expected), but could be more explicit about the read-only nature. Still, it provides useful behavioral context beyond a simple list.

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 well-structured with a clear topic sentence, then enumeration of fields, an explanation of related_project, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value. It is slightly long but not verbose; it could be tightened slightly (e.g., remove 'whichever apply' as it's implied).

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is quite complete. It explains the output fields, the role of related_project, and when to use it. However, it does not mention ordering or limiting of results, and the portfolio size is assumed small. For most use cases, this is sufficient.

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, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for no parameters is 4, as the description does not need to add parameter semantics. However, it does describe the output fields, which is beneficial for understanding the tool's result but not directly about 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 clearly states it lists every item in the portfolio with specific fields, and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_project_details' by emphasizing that links and related_project are included for a comprehensive overview. The verb 'List' and resource 'projects' are specific, and the mention of 'not just the flagship case studies' clarifies scope.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Call this first for any broad question like "what has this person worked on?" or "does a system exist for X?".' This tells the agent when to use this tool and implicitly when not to (e.g., deep-dive should use get_project_details). No exclusions or alternatives needed beyond the sibling context.

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