List nectr projects

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

Annotations already declare it as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the safety burden is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the payload contents – page counts and public llms.txt URLs – which is useful behavioral context absent from the annotations. It omits ordering, pagination, and scope (all projects vs. shared), keeping it short of a 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a precise verb, resource, and return payload. No filler and nothing restated from the name or title.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must at least say what comes back, and it does (page counts and llms.txt URLs). Annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around ordering/pagination and whether the listing is exhaustive, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly makes no attempt to describe nonexistent inputs.

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) and resource (the user's nectr projects) and even names what each entry contains (page counts, llms.txt URLs). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though search_library/get_page/convert_url are clearly distinct, so no real ambiguity exists.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'List' and the scope 'the user's projects' – an agent can infer this is the discovery/enumeration entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no prerequisite (e.g., authentication) is stated.

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