list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming what the response surfaces (last-updated, stale-checkpoint minutes, open conflicts), which tells the agent what it can learn before asking the user. It does not mention the archived-projects default, though the schema covers that.

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?

Two short sentences: first states purpose and payload, second states the routing rule and the guardrail. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure in detail; it just hints at what is returned. Annotations cover safety, the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description covers purpose plus the disambiguation workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so include_archived is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (the user's ContextBridge projects) and even previews the returned fields: last-updated time, minutes since last checkpoint, open conflicts. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_context, search_memory, or create_project, which either fetch one project or mutate one.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('when you don't know which project the user means') and a workflow instruction (ask them), plus an anti-pattern ('never guess a project slug'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the case where the project is already known, which keeps it from a 5.

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