list_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 does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the schema — a visibility filter ('can see') and computed per-project aggregates — but is silent on pagination/result size and does not confirm read-only status except by implication of '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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and payload, the second defines the usage trigger. Front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description outlines the returned per-project fields, which is adequate for a read-only list call. The only real gap is unspecified pagination/size behavior and the undocumented 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'as_agent' is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'the calling actor' hints at actor scoping but does not explain what as_agent does or when to pass it, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ('List') + resource ('every project the calling actor can see'), with the payload enumerated (active plan count, claimed task/finding counts). This scopes it clearly apart from siblings like list_plans and get_my_active_work without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit entry-point condition: 'Use this as the first call when a developer or orchestrator wakes up and needs to decide what to work on.' It states when to use it but names no exclusion or alternative tool for the non-wake-up case.

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