List ChatGPT projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — that this reads from a background tab in ChatGPT's sidebar — which explains why latency or tab state may matter. However, it omits what happens if no ChatGPT tab is open or no projects exist, leaving failure behavior undisclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence covering purpose, mechanism, and output, followed by a short usage cue. No wasted text, though the parenthetical slightly interrupts the main purpose statement.

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-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description is mostly adequate. But with no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing the return shape (list of project names? IDs?) and what 'selected for images' looks like, plus prerequisites like having ChatGPT open.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and describes the selection status surfaced as output ('show which one is selected for images').

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (Projects in the user's ChatGPT account), which distinguishes it clearly from sibling select_project. The parenthetical about reading from ChatGPT's sidebar in a background tab adds useful implementation scope, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

'Use it during setup' gives only a loose temporal cue. It doesn't say when to prefer list_projects over select_project, nor what to do once results are returned. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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