List Depot container build projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying what fields are returned and by clarifying the tool's scope relative to Depot CI runs.

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 front-loaded with the core action and payload, then provides concrete use cases and an explicit sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the simplicity of this read-only list tool, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent what to use the tool for, what it returns, and when to choose a different tool.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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'), a specific resource ('Depot container build projects'), and key returned data ('region, runner hardware, cache policy'). It clearly distinguishes itself from CI-run tools by explicitly saying these are container build projects, not CI runs.

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 explains when to use this tool: to find a projectId for list/diagnose operations and to check build-speed-related configuration. It also explicitly tells the agent to use depot_list_ci_runs for CI runs instead, providing a clear alternative.

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