projects.list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, but description adds valuable context: returns empty array if org-scoped with no projects, and clarifies plan field is billing plan not permission. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is concise yet comprehensive: single paragraph split into purpose, usage guidance, examples, and limitations. No fluff, every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and existence of output schema, description covers return fields, use cases, and edge cases (empty array, plan interpretation). Complete for a listing 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?

No parameters exist in input schema, so baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter information but none is needed; the tool is simple with no configuration.

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 clearly states the tool lists all accessible Clamp projects with id, name, and plan. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings by specifying that it's for listing projects, contrasting with other tools like alerts, cohorts, etc.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (e.g., user asks 'which sites do you see', need project_id) and when not needed (most tools auto-resolve for single-project). Includes concrete examples like 'which sites are tracked' and before drilling into specific project data.

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