typst_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the auth precondition ('authenticated user') and that both owned and shared/external projects are included — a meaningful behavioral fact. It does not disclose whether results are paginated, ordered, or truncated for large accounts.

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?

One sentence, verb and scope front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with structured fields.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description covers source and scope; the only gap is that it does not indicate what a returned project entry contains or whether results are grouped by owner vs shared. That is a minor omission for such a simple tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond scope; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The 'owned and shared/external' qualifier usefully narrows what the empty call returns.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (projects), plus the scope 'owned and shared/external', which separates it from typst_get_project (single project) and typst_list_files (files inside a project). It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the resource noun makes the distinction readable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative; usage is only implied by the scope (enumerate dashboard projects, likely to obtain project identifiers for typst_get_project / typst_list_files). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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