List Excalidraw projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' clearly signals a read-only operation, and 'managed and discovered' plus 'current Workspace' add useful scoping context. It could further disclose ordering, pagination, or return shape, but for a zero-parameter listing operation the behavior is transparent enough.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Lists') and resource ('Excalidraw projects') before adding scope.

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, parameterless listing tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the action. No output schema exists, but 'Lists... projects' sufficiently implies the return type. There are no missing prerequisites or hidden inputs.

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 and the schema documents 100% of them, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists'), a clear resource ('Excalidraw projects'), and adds scoping detail ('managed and discovered', 'current Workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_canvases and the create/update/delete project actions.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'projects', but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_canvases or inspect_project. There is no exclusionary language or mention of when not to use it.

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