granoflow_project_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'list projects' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, safe, or anything about side effects. With no behavioral disclosure, the agent might assume risks or lack of safety information.

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, complete sentence of three words. Every word is necessary. There is no redundancy or wasted text.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should at least hint at what is returned (e.g., project names, IDs). The bare description 'List Granoflow projects' provides no information about the return structure, leaving the agent uncertain about the output format.

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 schema coverage is 100% (trivial). The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters, it meets the baseline expectation. The description is adequate.

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 'List Granoflow projects' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (Granoflow projects). It clearly states the tool's action and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as granoflow_task_list and granoflow_health, which operate on different resources.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, since there are no other project-listing sibling tools and the context is simple, the implied usage is clear. A higher score would require explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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