list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the default filter behavior (owned), which is also covered in the schema's parameter description. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or ordering. Given the annotations cover the main trait, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the default behavior is stated in the second sentence. 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are not the description's job. The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers purpose and default. It does not explicitly mention that filtering is possible, but that is in the schema. Given the context, the description is sufficient and well-aligned with the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, and the parameter description includes supported filters and an example. The tool description adds no new meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states (default behavior is repeated). Since the schema handles the parameter thoroughly, baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the action (lists), the resource (Stitch projects), and the scope (accessible to the user). It also specifies the default behavior (owned by user), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_project or list_screens. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without needing to open the schema.

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 usage (when you need to list all projects) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It states the default behavior but gives no exclusions or references to sibling tools. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves room for clearer routing guidance.

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