resolve_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that it returns a JSON array of project names, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only, non-destructive operation, nor does it mention any edge cases or side effects (e.g., requiring a project to be open). The information is minimal but not contradictory.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the key action and scope, followed by the return type. There is no filler or redundancy; every word adds value.

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 is simple and has an output schema. The description already states the return format ('JSON array of project names'), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result. It does not elaborate on error conditions or environmental prerequisites, but for a straightforward list operation this is not critical.

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 the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The schema is empty and offers no additional meaning. The description's focus on 'list all projects' is sufficient and aligns with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('List all projects') with a specific scope ('current database folder'), and the tool name itself distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_create_project or resolve_list_timelines. It is unambiguous about what it does.

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 states the tool lists projects but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions (e.g., 'use X for filtered lists'). However, given the simple purpose, the usage is largely implied; it does not actively mislead.

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