list_loaded_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core action but doesn't disclose whether the listing is sorted, what information each project entry contains, or whether the tool has any side effects or prerequisites. For a read-only list operation, this is basic but not rich.

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 zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and clearly identifies the target resource, making it optimally sized for a simple zero-parameter tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of no output schema, the description is largely complete for the basic action. However, it could benefit from clarifying what 'lists' returns (e.g., project names, IDs, paths), which would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero properties, so parameter documentation is unnecessary. The description adds no parametrization detail because there is nothing to add. This matches the baseline for zero 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 the action ('Lists') and the resource ('currently loaded projects'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like load_js_project, unload_js_project, and refresh_js_project by focusing on the listing of already-loaded projects rather than managing project lifecycle.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among siblings. The usage is implied by the simple verb and resource, but the agent isn't told when this should be preferred over program_summary or other listing tools. It lacks clear context or exclusions.

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