gcloud_projects_list

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 correctly indicates a read operation (list) but does not disclose details like pagination behavior, rate limits, permission requirements, or whether the results are cached. The behavior is straightforward, so the lack of depth is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no extraneous text, but it could be slightly more complete without harming conciseness.

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 list tool with no output schema and only two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the complexity of GCP projects (e.g., organization vs. user context), it could benefit from mentioning that it returns list of project IDs and names, or that results may vary by authentication context.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters are described inline). The description adds no further context about the parameters beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. For example, it does not explain what 'filter' syntax is supported or what 'limit' defaults to.

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 clearly states the action ('list') and the resource ('GCP projects') with a specific scope ('accessible to the authenticated user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gcloud_projects_describe, but does not explicitly call out 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?

The description implies this is for listing all accessible projects, which provides basic context. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus alternative gcloud tools (e.g., for filtering or specific project details) and does not mention any prerequisites or use cases.

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