osf_projects_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists owned projects, but does not mention whether pagination is supported, rate limits, or that it only returns projects where the user is the owner (not contributor). More detail would be helpful.

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 a single sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and there is no waste.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough to inform the agent about what the tool does. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema handles 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters leads to a baseline score of 4. The description provides no extra parameter info, which is acceptable here.

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 lists projects owned by the authenticated OSF user. The verb 'List' and the resource 'projects owned by the authenticated OSF user' are specific. This distinguishes it from siblings like osf_components_list (lists components) and osf_project_get (gets a single project).

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 implies usage when you need to list the authenticated user's projects, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or provide alternatives. For example, if you need a specific project's details, osf_project_get would be more appropriate, but this is not mentioned.

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