List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds domain context — that projects are files restored into ~/work — but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no projects exist. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is adequate.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler. The nested parenthetical is slightly awkward to parse but front-loads the resource before the explanatory gloss.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the meaning of 'project' in this environment. Missing only usage routing, which is the guidelines dimension.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical about ~/work does add meaning to what the returned project objects represent.

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 identifies the resource (saved projects) and adds a useful gloss on what a project actually is (files restored into ~/work on launch) plus the size attribute returned. Combined with the name list_projects, an agent can tell it apart from list_machines or list_apps, though the description itself never states the listing action 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before launch_machine or extend_machine, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives. The implication that this enumerates saved projects is left entirely to inference.

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