List authorized local projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of listing only what is authorized, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss output format, ordering, or potential errors, so it adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence states the core action and scope without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's 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?

As a simple read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys its purpose and output components. However, it could mention whether results are filtered or sorted, and it does not describe error cases, which is a minor gap. The absence of a return schema is compensated by listing the types of information returned.

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?

With no parameters, the schema is trivially fully covered. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and per baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. It does clarify that the tool returns write permissions and task names, which are not parameters but output 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 specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource 'local projects' plus additional elements 'write permissions, and task names'. The qualifier 'authorized by the user' differentiates it from the sibling discover_projects, making its 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its sibling discover_projects. The description lacks any conditional context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when it should be preferred.

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