ddev_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default behavior (shows all) and the effect of activeOnly, but does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or return format. As a listing tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.

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 concise and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. It includes usage and flag information in a compact format. Every line serves a purpose, though the flag line introduces a schema mismatch, but that is a content issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains default behavior, the parameter's effect, and usage. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives and does not describe output structure, but these are minor for such a straightforward tool. The unsupported flag mention is a notable gap.

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 schema already documents activeOnly with 'Show only running projects' (100% coverage). The description adds default behavior but also mentions flags '-t/--type' which are not present in the input schema. This is misleading and could lead the agent to attempt passing a 'type' parameter that the tool definition does not accept.

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's function: 'List DDEV projects and their status.' The verb 'list' and resource 'DDEV projects' are specific, and the mention of showing all by default or active only distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddev_start, ddev_stop, and ddev_describe.

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 usage context for the activeOnly parameter ('use activeOnly for running only') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like ddev_describe or ddev_logs. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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