list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by revealing it is a read of the '10_Projects' index page, that only active projects are included, and that each project comes with one status line. This gives the agent a meaningful behavioral model without misleading details.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the action and output. It adds only high-signal details: scope ('active'), output shape ('one-line status each'), and data source ('10_Projects' index). No filler.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is quite complete: it specifies what is returned, which records are included, and where the data comes from. It could more explicitly label the operation as read-only, but 'by reading the index page' carries most of that weight.

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 no parameters, and the input schema confirms this. The description appropriately implies that no filtering or arguments are needed because it lists 'all' active projects, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 concrete verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all active projects in the AI OS'), and a distinctive output ('one-line status each'). It also names the mechanism ('reading the 10_Projects index page'), which separates it from sibling tools like get_project_status and search_vault.

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 makes the core use case clear: use this tool when you need an inventory of all active projects. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or when to prefer a sibling like get_project_status or get_page, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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