roboflow_project_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 mentions authentication context but does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or explicitly confirm it's a read-only operation. The minimal wording leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, focused sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the object and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the response contains or any list-related behavior like empty results or ordering. Given there is no output schema, the description is somewhat under-specified, though acceptable for a basic list operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'workspace' parameter, so the schema already fully documents parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing that the workspace is the authenticated one, which aligns with the schema's default note. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('projects in the authenticated Roboflow workspace'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like roboflow_workflow_list or roboflow_pretrained_list by naming the exact object type and scope.

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 when to use this tool (to list projects in the user's own workspace) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The phrase 'authenticated workspace' hints at the contrast with universe search, but no explicit guidance is given.

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