list_plane_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation does not change Plane, implying read-only behavior, but it does not cover prerequisites, permissions, pagination, or error behavior for the active-workspace dependency.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the resource, scope, and intent without filler. Every element contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 a simple zero-parameter list operation, and an output schema is present, so return values need not be described. The description covers the active workspace scope and non-mutating behavior, though it omits explicit prerequisite guidance for the active workspace.

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 input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this receives a 4, with no description-level parameter details needed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: list projects in the active Plane workspace. It also adds scope and intent by saying this supports selecting a project without changing Plane, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as activate_plane_project.

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 phrase 'so one can be selected without changing Plane' gives an implied use case: retrieving projects for selection while avoiding state changes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of siblings like list_configured_plane_workspaces, activate_plane_project, or get_active_plane_context.

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