project_list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which is in tension with a verb ("List") that reads as a pure read. The description does nothing to resolve that: no mention of side effects, permissions, or why a listing operation is not flagged read-only. With annotations present the bar is lower, but it adds zero context beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The most important information — that this lists projects — is the first word.

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 no output schema, the description does state what is returned (the project list plus the current selection). It could say more about the return shape (names vs. IDs, how the selection is marked), but the core need is covered.

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 and an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (registered projects) plus an extra detail — the currently selected one — so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It sits clearly alongside project_add/project_select/project_prune in the sibling family, though it never names those siblings or distinguishes itself from them 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/when-not guidance and no alternatives named. Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this is the discovery call before project_select or project_prune, but the description never says so.

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