List Projects

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds the useful auth-scoping detail that results are limited to the authenticated account, which is beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but these are minor given the annotations.

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, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple, zero-required-parameter list tool.

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?

Given the zero required parameters, complete schema documentation, output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It could mention a related sibling, but the essential invocation details are already covered elsewhere.

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?

All three optional parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden. The description provides no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Cloudeval projects'), and scope ('visible to the authenticated account'), making the primary purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like projects_get or projects_overview, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 scope clause implies this tool is for listing projects the authenticated account can see, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives such as projects_get or projects_overview. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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