project_list

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that this is a read operation ('Leitura'), which is important safety-relevant behavior. It also states that it marks which projects can be used elsewhere, adding output semantics beyond the tool name. It does not detail output format, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a useful behavioral note. No filler or repetition.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool, the description sufficiently states what it returns (projects) and why it matters (valid values for the project parameter). No output schema exists, but the description covers enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no need to explain parameter syntax. The description still adds value by clarifying the meaning of the 'project' parameter used by sibling tools.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it lists projects in the collection. It also adds the unique purpose of marking which projects are valid for the 'project' parameter of other tools, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like repo_list or commit_list.

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 the tool should be used before other tools to discover valid project values for their project parameter. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives as exclusions.

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