list_projects

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the configuration source (environment variables) and return format (JSON string), but omits safety indicators (read-only status), error conditions, or caching behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero redundancy: purpose declaration, source clarification, and return type. Well front-loaded with the most critical information first.

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?

Appropriate for a simple parameterless read operation. It covers purpose, data source, and return type. Given the output schema exists (per context signals), it need not detail return fields, though it could mention error cases or prerequisites.

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 parameters (100% coverage trivially). The description correctly omits parameter discussion as there are none to document, meeting the baseline expectation for stateless parameterless tools.

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 ('List') and resource ('projects'), and distinguishes scope by specifying 'discovered' projects configured 'through environment variables'—distinguishing it from service-specific siblings like n8n_list_projects or openpanel_list_projects.

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 implicitly indicates usage by specifying the data source (environment variables), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus service-specific list tools or prerequisites for configuration.

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