workspace_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, performance characteristics, or error conditions. However, for a read-only list operation with no parameters, the description is minimally adequate as the behavior is straightforward.

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 concise sentence that conveys the purpose and output fields without any redundant or filler content.

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's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, list operation), the description provides adequate information. It doesn't detail pagination or error handling, but this is typical for such a simple tool. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit listing of returned fields.

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, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by clarifying what the output will contain (name, root, stack, enabled tools), which is beyond the empty schema.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all configured projects') and specifies the fields returned ('name, root, stack, and enabled tools'). It uniquely identifies this tool among 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?

The description implies usage for listing projects, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. siblings or when not to use. Since there is a sibling 'workspace_set_project' for a different purpose, the context is clear enough but lacks explicit directives.

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