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 discloses that the tool is read-only (returns data without side effects), specifies output format (sorted array), and mentions exclusions. This is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention any latency or data staleness.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and output format without any wasted words. Every element serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of the tool's behavior: list distinct project IDs, sorted, excluding global/unscoped. This is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool's results.

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, so the schema coverage is 100% and the description need not add parameter details. The description adds value by clarifying the output format and scope (sorted array, exclusions), which compensates for the lack of output schema.

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 lists distinct project IDs from the knowledge graph, specifies a sorted array output, and excludes global/unscoped entities. This specific verb-resource combination differentiates it from sibling tools that handle other entities or operations.

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 project IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_project_scope or get_project_scope. However, the context of sibling tools and the straightforward nature of the operation make the intended use clear.

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