list_projects

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

There are no annotations, so the description alone must convey safety and behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and 'all' clarifies scope, but the description does not address pagination, return shape, or side effects; this is a modest gap for a trivial tool.

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?

A single short sentence that is entirely relevant and front-loaded; no filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters.

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?

The tool is simple and the description provides the essential 'what' and the unfiltered scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description remains a bare statement and leaves return-value details to inference, so it is minimal but viable.

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 properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per baseline for parameterless tools, the description does not need to compensate, although it adds no parameter detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('Phoenix tracing projects'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling list tools because it targets projects, not datasets or evaluations.

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 gives no conditions, alternatives, or when-not-to-use guidance. While 'list all' implies a use case, it never explains when to choose list_projects over sibling tools like list_datasets or list_evaluations.

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