finnhub_project_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists projects with statistics, but does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or error behavior. The behavior is straightforward for a read-only list operation, but more detail could be added.

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 sentences long and front-loads the main purpose. The 'Operations' section is slightly redundant but still concise and helpful, 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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and output schema present, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and the operation parameter, though it leaves some nuance about the parameter's necessity and possible other values.

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 schema only defines a required 'operation' string with no description or enum, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by documenting the operation value 'list' and explaining it lists all projects, adding meaning 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 states 'List all project workspaces with statistics,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like finnhub_project_create, which is for creating projects.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to list all project workspaces. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for a simple listing operation.

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