productive_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden, disclosing that the tool uses a local cache that refreshes automatically every hour and can be forced refreshed. It also states the return fields. Potential side effects or auth needs are not mentioned, but the behavior is well-scoped.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The most critical information (action, resource, return fields, cache mechanism) is front-loaded and efficiently conveyed.

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 simple nature (no params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: cache behavior, fields, and refresh option. It is arguably complete for a list tool, though it could mention if the cache lists only active projects and not archived ones.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The tool's behavior is fully captured without needing 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?

Description clearly states 'List all active Productive.io projects from local cache,' specifying the action (list) and resource (projects). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like productive_find_project (search) and productive_my_projects (personal scope) by implying full list vs. filtered.

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?

While the description mentions cache behavior and an alternative force-refresh tool (productive_refresh_cache), it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. other project-related siblings like productive_find_project or productive_my_projects. Usage context is implied but not clearly defined.

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