list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state the filtering behavior ('at least one memory'), which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, performance, or how inclusive 'every' is. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. The key scoping condition is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the core selection logic. However, the unexplained optional 'llm' parameter and the lack of any guidance beyond the one-liner leave the agent with a meaningful gap in understanding how to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single 'llm' parameter at all. An agent cannot tell whether, when, or how to set it. The description was responsible for compensating for the schema gap and did not.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('projects'), and a precise inclusion criterion ('has at least one memory'). This clearly differentiates it from the memory-focused sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you need an enumeration of projects that have associated memories. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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