list_cospend_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds substantial context: it explains the id slug is used as projectId elsewhere, defines the myaccesslevel numeric meanings, and details the embedded objects and counters returned, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and then provides a structured return-value breakdown. The field list is somewhat detailed but necessary for the agent to understand the tool's output; no sentence is wasted.

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-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, how to interpret key fields, and the access scope. Annotations cover safety, and the return description is rich enough that an agent can invoke the tool and understand its results without further information.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics and the description carries no burden here. Baseline 4 applies since there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: lists Cospend projects accessible to the current user. The first sentence clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_cospend_project, create_cospend_project, or update_cospend_project, and includes the important scope qualifier 'current user can access'.

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: this is the enumeration tool for Cospend projects, with a defined access scope. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context and sibling list make the intended usage obvious enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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