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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation, but does not mention any potential side effects, limitations, or response specifics such as pagination or return format. For a simple zero-parameter list, this is adequate, though 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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, exactly meeting the standard for 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?

Given the zero-parameter complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is almost complete. It clearly states the operation and the resource. However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., fields of a project), which might be relevant for an agent to know how to parse the response. This is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 and the schema description coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). According to the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-related information, but there are none to explain, so this baseline is appropriate.

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 'List' and a clear resource 'all known Manifestation projects'. It is unambiguous and does not overlap with any sibling tool, which include actions like start_project, run, or health, none of which list projects. This fully clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any context about when it is appropriate or whether other tools might be better suited for certain scenarios. An agent is left to infer its usage solely from the name and description.

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