list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation via 'returns' but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no permissions, or does not modify data. It also does not disclose any limitations like pagination or ordering. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 the low complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main return content ('list and descriptions') and the recommended usage context. However, it does not detail the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., field names or types), which would be expected without an output schema. Still, for a simple listing tool, it is sufficient for initial selection.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4 according to the rubric. The description adds value by explaining the returned content (list and descriptions) and its use, even though it does not need to provide parameter-level semantics.

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's function: 'returns the list and descriptions of registered projects.' The verb '반환' (returns) and the resource '프로젝트 목록과 설명' (list and descriptions of projects) make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like add_project/remove_project (mutations) and search_code/read_file (content retrieval).

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 gives explicit context for when to use: 'call before searching to understand which projects exist and narrow down the search scope based on the descriptions.' This provides clear usage guidance but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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