List projects

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety burden is lifted. The description usefully adds the workspace scoping and the id format for chaining, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or completeness limits for a workspace with many projects.

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?

A single compact clause that front-loads the scope and tucks the id-format detail where it matters. Nothing wasted, nothing padded.

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 with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (all projects in the token's workspace) and the shape of the ids. Missing only ordering/pagination behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose meaning the description could clarify, and nothing is misdescribed.

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?

States the resource (projects) and scope (every project in this token's workspace), which separates it from get_project and the other list_* siblings. It never uses an explicit list verb, but the enumerating quantifier 'Every project' makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: by promising the `prj_...` ids the content tools take, it hints you call this first to discover project ids. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as get_project for a single project.

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