list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares 'Read-only', which is the key behavioral trait for a list operation. It also describes the return value in detail, including the per-project summary and the empty state behavior. No side effects or auth requirements are mentioned, but for a read-only list, this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the core functionality, then a 'Use to' section, and a 'Returns' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the output per project (name, chunks, quality score, docs path, git repo URL) and the behavior when no projects are registered. No gaps remain for an agent to effectively use this tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with no parameters to describe, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description compensates by explaining the output.

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 the specific verb 'list' and the resource 'projects', clearly stating it lists all registered projects with chunk counts and health stats. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_active_project' by noting that the latter checks only the active project, making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('to check which projects exist...') and provides a clear alternative ('Use get_active_project() to check only the active project'). It also mentions the behavior for empty projects. While it could include explicit 'when not to use' guidance, the context is sufficient for an agent.

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