list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists available projects, which is a simple read operation. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as whether all projects are returned, authentication requirements, or pagination. For a zero-parameter tool, it is adequate but minimal.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and its purpose. It could be improved by noting that it returns all projects, but the simplicity of the tool does not demand more.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'projects', and specifies the context 'available for timesheet entries'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_project and list_timesheet_entries by focusing solely on listing projects.

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 implies usage for retrieving projects for timesheet entries, which is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like list_timesheet_entries. Nonetheless, the context is unambiguous.

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