List Three.js projects

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the scoping context ('configured Three.js project root') and implies a read-only list operation, but it omits details such as ordering, error behavior, or whether any side effects (e.g., refresh) occur. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple list tool.

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 sentence that is clear and direct, with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the utility.

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 list tool, the description provides sufficient context about what it lists and where. The existence of an output schema likely covers return value details, so the description need not elaborate. It could mention whether the list is sorted or filtered, but the simplicity keeps it adequate.

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 confirms this. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics, which is appropriate since none exist.

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') and resource ('projects available in the configured Three.js project root') that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspect_project' or 'check_project', but the action of listing projects is distinct enough to be understood.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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