list_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permission/auth needs, whether an unknown project errors or returns empty, result size or pagination, or whether the call is purely read-only — only the field names hint at read semantics.

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?

It is a single short clause with no filler words, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of the action. Brevity here comes partly from omission rather than efficient information density.

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 2-parameter tool with undocumented schema fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should cover the identifier format and the vault scoping. It describes the return payload loosely but leaves the calling contract (what a valid 'project' and 'vault' look like) unresolved.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description never mentions 'vault' at all nor clarifies whether 'project' is a name, path, or ID. The one thing it does imply — that the project identifier scopes the returned notes — is the minimum the agent could already infer from the parameter name.

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 phrase 'All notes of a project in any folder' conveys the resource and scope, but there is no verb, so the operation (list/retrieve) is only inferred from the tool name. It also blends two things — the project's notes and the project's 'stage and next action' — without making the relation explicit.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus siblings like search, find_projects, or open_note. 'in any folder' hints at a broad-recall use case, but the agent gets no explicit selection rule or prerequisite (e.g., needs an existing project identifier).

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