hcl_list_projects

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 does disclose the non-recursive scope ("immediately under"), which is genuine behavioral information, but it says nothing about whether it requires configured roots to exist, how it behaves when none are set, or that it is a read-only operation.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource and placing the scope qualifier where it is immediately readable.

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 read tool with an output schema present, the description is close to sufficient: return shape is covered by the schema and scope is stated. It could add one clause about the dependency on configured project roots or the follow-up inspection path.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly implies the tool takes no filtering arguments.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("List HCL projects") with a scoping qualifier ("immediately under configured project roots") that distinguishes it from a deep/recursive listing. It is distinguishable from hcl_inspect_project, which clearly targets a single project, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the entry-point discovery tool and that hcl_inspect_project is the follow-up for detail; nothing in the description routes it.

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