list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes optional filtering and detail control but does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, sort order, response shape, or any side effects. The description mostly restates parameter purposes without adding behavioral context.

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?

Description is compact and front-loaded with the action. The Args list is efficient, each line provides necessary parameter information, and there is no redundant prose.

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?

All parameters are covered, but the description omits details about the return value, pagination, or when to prefer sibling tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is adequate but incomplete for a list operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the description's argument list mirrors the schema descriptions almost verbatim. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema but does present parameters in a readable format. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema documents everything.

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 clearly states the tool's function: "List LangSmith projects" with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions optional filtering and detail control, distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_prompts or list_datasets by resource name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_experiments or list_datasets. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and basic description.

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