List projects

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects. The description adds one piece of real context beyond that — results are permission-scoped to what 'this account can upload to' — but says nothing about return shape or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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 sentences, no filler, with the purpose front-loaded and the actionable next step immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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-argument, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and follow-up action. The one small gap is that it doesn't hint at what a project entry contains (e.g., the slug field it tells you to reuse), but that is minor here.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-related value is expected or missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the buildtree projects') with a meaningful scope qualifier ('this account can upload to'), which distinguishes it from buildtree_list_builds and buildtree_list_feedback. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those list siblings.

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?

Gives usable forward guidance: 'Use the slug with buildtree_upload' tells the agent what to do with the result and links to the dependent sibling. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or of preconditions (e.g., login/auth state), 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.