listProjects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: the `open` flag means edits route through the live editor session and are user-undoable via Ctrl/Cmd+Z, which genuinely informs how results should be interpreted.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the essential content: the returned fields first, then the chaining convention. 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does so completely (five named fields) while also explaining the semantics of the least obvious one. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the results.

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. The reference to `projectId` pertains to other tools, not this one, and is correctly framed as such.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (OpenScreen projects) and enumerates exactly what each returned entry contains: id, title, last update, asset count, and the `open` flag. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like createProject or setProjectInfo.

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?

States the downstream workflow explicitly: pass a project's id as `projectId` to any other tool to read or edit that project, making this the natural discovery entry point. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls short of the top tier despite strong contextual routing.

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