List projects

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds meaningful scoping: 'projects you can see' indicates visibility filtering, and it enumerates the fields returned. No additional behavioral caveats are needed for this simple read operation.

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?

Two short clauses front-load the core action and return fields, followed by a single-purpose usage hint. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description covers what it returns, who can see it, and how to use it. No output schema exists, so the explicit field list compensates for that.

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 description cannot add parameter-level detail. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description does explain the output fields, which is the relevant semantic content.

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 verb 'List' with the resource 'projects (namespaces)' and specifies the returned fields (name, display name, phase). It distinguishes this from sibling list_resources by clarifying these are namespaces, and its 'Start here' note positions it as the entry point for namespace discovery.

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?

It clearly states the tool's context: 'Start here to find a namespace to work in,' which tells the agent when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a read-only list tool.

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