list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that only owned and team-shared projects are returned, the exact fields per project, the 'shared' flag behavior, the meaning of model_count (SAVED models, not all models), and the intentional absence of delete in the API.

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 compact but information-dense, with a clear progression: what the tool lists, what it returns, how to use the ids, and the one intentional API limitation. Every sentence adds value; nothing is filler.

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 no-argument tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains the return payload, field semantics, downstream usage, and the missing delete capability. An agent could invoke this correctly with no further information.

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, so there is nothing meaningful to document; the baseline for parameter semantics is therefore 4. The description correctly focuses on output semantics instead, which is appropriate for a parameterless list operation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List the projects (the app's model folders) you can file models into.' This clearly states what the tool does and clarifies what a 'project' is in domain terms. It is distinct from sibling tools like save_model or rename_project, and the follow-up about ids reinforces that distinction.

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 description explicitly tells the agent how to use returned ids: 'Use the ids with save_model(project_id=...) and rename_project.' It also provides an important when-not: 'There is deliberately no delete over the API — use the app to delete a project.' This gives practical guidance beyond a bare list function.

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