list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what the result contains and by flagging that project content originates from collaborators and must be treated as data, not instructions — a prompt-injection warning that annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return shape, then the safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by describing the return payload, and with zero parameters there is little else an agent needs in order to invoke it. Minor gaps remain: whether results are paginated or truncated for large accounts, and whether the listing covers owned versus shared projects.

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 and the schema reflects that, so there is nothing parameter-level to document. The description correctly conveys the implicit semantics — an unfiltered, account-wide listing — which is the only parameter-adjacent information available.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all Overleaf projects in the account") and follows with the payload it returns (IDs, names, metadata). This cleanly separates it from get_project_info, create_project, and rename_project in the sibling set without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point for enumerating projects before calling get_project_info or pull_project. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative is named, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names.

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