list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Takes no arguments and returns the full project list', which is transparent about its input and output scope. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate.

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 three sentences: first sentence lists what is returned, second sentence explains usage, third sentence confirms no arguments. Each sentence is essential and well-front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and output fields completely. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and when to use it.

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 with 100% schema description coverage. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description correctly notes 'Takes no arguments', adding no redundant information.

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 explicitly states 'List every project with its id, name, client, status (active, on_hold, or closed), and budget_hours', providing a specific verb+resource with detailed fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning use cases like finding project id before creating tasks, logging time, or requesting hours report, which implies differentiation from tools like create_task, log_time, and get_project_hours.

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 clearly states when to use: 'Use this to discover which projects exist or to find a project's id or exact name before creating tasks, logging time, or requesting an hours report.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear enough.

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