Project List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' reasonably implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and 'this server knows about' communicates the local scope. Still, it does not disclose return behavior, ordering, or potential side effects beyond what the output schema may define.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It identifies the exact object being listed and the context ('server knows about'), and it does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is appropriate; nothing in the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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') and resource ('goboscript projects'), and adds a clarifying scope ('this server knows about'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like project_list_assets by focusing on projects rather than assets.

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 its use case: call it when you need to enumerate the goboscript projects available on the server. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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