Workspace projects and files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: prerequisites ('Altium running'), inclusion of non-design entries (Free Documents, AltiumScript MCP project), and a clarification about logical documents not being every editor tab. These details go beyond annotations and help the agent anticipate the tool's output and edge cases.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Purpose, When to use, Parameters, Returns, Prerequisites, Notes) and is appropriately sized. Each sentence serves a purpose: the return format is described efficiently, and the notes clarify potential pitfalls without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return JSON structure (projectCount, focusedProjectFullPath, projects[], documents[]), making the tool's behavior predictable. It also covers prerequisites and edge cases (non-design entries, logical documents), so the agent has all necessary context to invoke and interpret results.

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 (coverage 100%), and the description explicitly states 'Parameters: None,' which is clear. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description neither adds nor detracts; it simply confirms there are no arguments to worry about.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'List every open workspace entry (projects + logical documents).' This distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_schematic_data and get_pcb_layers, which focus on specific design data rather than the workspace project hierarchy. The purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states use cases: discover project_full_path, schematic_full_path, or confirm which .PrjPcb is focused. This provides clear context and helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the distinct domain makes confusion unlikely.

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