List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, return format, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds little, but it is not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action and scope, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only behavior, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details about what a 'project' contains or whether pagination applies, which could help an agent understand the response. However, for a basic list operation, it covers the essential purpose.

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, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It correctly implies that all projects are listed without filtering.

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 all projects in the Unity Build Automation organization.' It clearly communicates what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_build_targets or list_builds, which also use 'list' semantics. Sibling differentiation is absent, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage by naming the resource (projects in the organization), but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With no parameters, there is little ambiguity, yet it fails to mention any prerequisites or contexts like requiring an organization ID. This is the minimum viable level.

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