list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the result is a compact list containing name, one-line description, and stack, and that it intentionally omits full details. This is adequate for a simple read-only enumeration with no parameters.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by useful return-shape information and a sibling alternative, making it easy to parse.

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 no-argument listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it defines the result shape, notes the intentional limitation, and names the sibling tool for deeper data. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers everything. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; no parameter explanation is 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List all projects in Ayush's portfolio'. It also distinguishes itself from the most similar sibling by saying it returns a compact list, while get_project_details provides full details.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: when a compact overview of all projects is needed. It explicitly routes users to get_project_details for full descriptions, GitHub links, and demo URLs, though it does not mention when search_projects_by_stack or get_flagship_project would be more appropriate.

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