list_gcp_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (listing projects) and the return type (list of project IDs), which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, potential large result sets, authentication requirements beyond 'authenticated user', or error conditions. Adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then clearly stating the return value. There is no redundant information; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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, parameterless, read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it states what it lists, for whom, and what it returns. No output schema exists, so including the return type is necessary and sufficient. Edge cases like empty lists are not critical for this minimal tool.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed, but it does clarify the return format, which is a minor bonus 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('GCP projects') with a clear scope ('all available ... for the authenticated user'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_gcp_project_details, which focuses on a single project's details.

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 use when an overview of all accessible GCP projects is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving usage guidance to inference from the sibling list.

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