List grounds (projects)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the authentication scope, the summary/full view distinction, and the always-stripped icon base64 (UI-only). However, it doesn't mention ordering, pagination, or potential rate limits, which are minor gaps for a list operation. Still, the added field-level detail exceeds typical descriptions.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope, usage guidance, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids fluff. The structure is clean and scannable, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it specifies the full return fields for both views, the stripping behavior, and the authentication scope. It also provides the usage context needed to invoke the tool first. The lack of output schema is compensated by the detailed field list.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of the parameter (view) with an enum and description, the tool description adds significant meaning by explaining the default ('summary') and what 'full' unlocks (preNotes, seedMeta, typeCounts, raw metadata, timestamps). This enriches the parameter understanding well beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool returns all grounds (projects) accessible to the authenticated user, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('grounds'). It also mentions the latest activity timestamp and differentiates itself from sibling tools by positioning 'Use this first to discover slugs for other tools', establishing it as the entry point.

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 tool says 'Use this first to discover slugs for other tools', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the default summary view and how to switch to full view with view='full', providing practical usage context. While it doesn't name alternatives like list_bugs, the entry-point guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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