list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, no side effects, no parameters, returns array of project names, empty array if no projects, case-sensitive. This is comprehensive.

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 structured with a purpose statement, bullet list of use cases, and behavioral details. Every sentence is meaningful, and it is concise with no redundancy.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully complete: it explains what is returned, the source, case sensitivity, and empty case behavior.

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 no parameters, and the description confirms 'Does not require any parameters.' Since schema coverage is 100% trivially, the description adds value by clarifying the lack of parameters. Baseline 4 for 0-parameter tools.

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 'List all projects that have documentation stored in the alcove doc-repo', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on listing vs. other operations like search, init, etc.

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 lists four explicit scenarios when to use the tool, such as verifying project existence before calling get_project_docs_overview, and mentions using it before scope='global' search. It provides clear when-to-use and alternatives guidance.

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