list_projects

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining visibility scoping ('calling actor can see') and the returned aggregates, though it omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or pagination.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a clear usage cue. No sentence is wasted.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description does well by describing the returned per-project data and the wake-up use case. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'as_agent' parameter.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'as_agent', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain it at all. The phrase 'calling actor' hints at actor selection but does not clarify what 'as_agent' does or when to supply it.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List every project') and clarifies the scope ('the calling actor can see') plus the aggregate data returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_plans and get_plan_dashboard.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use this as the first call when a developer or orchestrator wakes up and needs to decide what to work on.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended situation is unambiguous.

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