list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the directory check, returned fields, ordering, and source semantics. Lacks explicit mention of error handling (e.g., missing directory) but is otherwise transparent for a read-only list operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections, including a 'When to use' block and return description. It is slightly verbose but front-loads the main action and uses bullet points for fields. Could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's role: listing projects with field explanations, ordering, and how to interpret the source field. It fits seamlessly into the sibling tool ecosystem by providing pipeline context.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no param info, but the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add param semantics.

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 clearly states that the tool retrieves the list of existing projects from a specific directory, includes detailed field information, and orders by recency. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the first call in the pipeline.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Always call this tool first before starting the PPT generation pipeline.' It then outlines decision points based on results (no projects, existing projects, imported projects), offering clear alternatives.

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