list_projects

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds the specific return fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavior such as default filtering, pagination, or ordering. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loads the core verb and resource, and provides just enough detail about the returned fields in a compact parenthetical.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, two optional parameters with defaults and full schema descriptions, and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It could add explicit default-filter behavior, but the schema and annotations already cover most operational context.

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%, so the include_trashed and include_archived parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'Overleaf projects,' and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, owner email, last updated). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling file-focused tools like list_files and from mutating project tools.

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 usage is implied: call this when you need a list of Overleaf projects. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose, though the resource name and read-only verb make the intended context reasonably obvious.

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