list_projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by specifying what the listing contains and how it relates to downstream workspace tools. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 only two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('List your projects'), then provides the most useful operational details: return fields and the workspace_id relevance. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only list tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the response contains, the domain terminology, and why the workspace_id matters for other workspace tools.

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%, with both page and origin already adequately explained in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: list projects. It goes beyond a simple label by naming the returned fields (name, date, booked flag, workspace_id) and clarifying HoneyBook's terminology ('events'). The 'project switcher' framing also helps distinguish it from a single-project lookup like get_project.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it is the portal's project switcher and returns the workspace_id that every other workspace tool takes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the top bar for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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