list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the response contents, the semantics of cluster_core and image_aliases, and the visibility hint behavior (unreadable components reported as unchecked, never guessed). It also notes the response is small and takes no arguments.

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 dense run-on sentence that packs each field explanation and usage guidance together without clear structural breaks. The key usage instruction ('call this FIRST') appears only at the end, limiting front-loading.

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 enumerates all response fields and their meanings, including edge cases for cluster_core visibility. It also provides context for how this tool fits with siblings, making the description complete for a zero-parameter listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and the description explicitly states 'no arguments,' confirming the schema and adding clarity that no input is required.

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 what the tool returns: every project with its slug, name, tier, category, and other attributes. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that slug is the canonical ID other tools accept and that this should be called first when unsure of a slug.

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 instructs to call this tool first when unsure of a slug, and references check_stack as the place where a wrong slug shows up as tracked:false. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative context.

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