weeek_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' clearly signals a read operation (non-destructive, no mutation), which is accurate given the tool's read-oriented nature. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like return format, pagination, error cases, or whether authentication is required — though for a simple list tool with zero parameters, the risk is minimal.

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 sentence that is perfectly sized — verb, resource, scope, and output fields in nine words. Zero waste, no filler, fully front-loaded. An exemplar of conciseness.

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 listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It covers what it lists (projects), scope (all), and output fields (id, name). The only gaps are minor: no mention of pagination or authorization requirements, but these are unlikely to be critical for a simple read-only list of projects.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly notes the output fields (id, name), which is the most relevant semantic information an agent needs. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and the field disclosure adds value.

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 'List all task-manager projects (id, name)' uses a specific verb (List) with clear resource (projects) and scope (all), explicitly stating the returned fields (id, name). It distinguishes clearly from siblings like weeek_manage_projects (which handles mutations) and other list tools targeting different resources (boards, members, tasks).

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 this is a read-oriented listing operation via the 'List all' phrasing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't name sibling alternatives (such as weeek_list_boards or weeek_manage_projects) or state when-not-to-use it, though the read/list orientation is reasonably clear from context.

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