list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It correctly states 'This is a read-only operation' and indicates the return format (list with IDs and names). However, it could detail pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements, which are absent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return format, usage guidance. Front-loaded with the main function. No filler or repetition.

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 no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, read-only nature, output content, and usage context. Missing potential details like pagination, but overall adequate.

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?

With zero parameters, baseline is 4. The description adds value by describing the output (formatted list of projects with IDs and names), which is beyond the empty input schema. This helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 tool lists all Freeplay projects accessible to the user, with the verb 'List' and the resource 'projects'. It specifies read-only operation, and the context of siblings shows other list tools for different resources, so this tool is well-distinguished.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here for most workflows' and 'Use a project ID from this list to scope most other Freeplay operations', providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but the guidance is practical and sufficient for a foundational list tool.

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