list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation through the word 'list', but doesn't disclose whether results are paginated, sorted, or complete; nor does it mention any potential side effects or limitations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is informative, and it is appropriately sized for a parameterless list operation.

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?

For a simple parameterless list operation, this description covers the core usage. However, the complete lack of detail about the return format or any read behavior means an agent must rely on the server response to learn the output structure, and given the absence of annotations and output schema, slightly more context could be useful.

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 the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The schema confirms this, meeting the baseline for tools with no parameters.

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?

Description includes a specific verb ('list'), resource ('projects'), and scope ('in the memory bank'), making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_project_files, but the target resource is different enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives. It only says 'List all projects in the memory bank' and gives no context about use cases, ordering, or relationship to memory_bank_read or list_project_files.

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