list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read-only, non-destructive call, but nothing states side effects, permission requirements, whether results include archived/closed projects, or whether the listing is recursive across subfolders.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is arguably too terse rather than padded — the brevity leaves gaps, but no sentence is 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?

For a zero-param list tool with no output schema, the description should say at least what a list entry looks like or how the result is ordered/limited. It establishes scope but leaves the return shape entirely undocumented.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description does add a small amount of meaning by anchoring the result set to "the current database folder," implying the scope comes from external state rather than arguments.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("List projects") with a scoping qualifier ("in the current database folder"), which distinguishes it from mutating siblings like create_project, save_project, and load_project. It stops short of naming an alternative or clarifying how it relates to get_status or the load/save family.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to siblings such as get_status (which may also expose project context). The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before load_project.

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