medeval_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the qualifier 'local' and 'chat projects/workspaces,' which narrows scope meaningfully. However, it doesn't disclose pagination or filtering behavior beyond the bare action. Since annotations cover the main behavioral guarantees, the description adds modest extra context, warranting a score of 3.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word contributes value ('List local chat projects/workspaces; use before selecting a workspace'), with no redundant phrasing. It is optimally concise and structured.

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 a simple list operation with an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the primary purpose and usage timing. However, the absence of any parameter documentation leaves the agent without guidance on how to paginate or filter, which is a notable omission for a tool with three parameters. The description is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% – the description provides no information about the three parameters (limit, query, cursor). These are common pagination/filtering parameters, but the description does not explain them or their defaults. With zero coverage, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so. This is a significant gap.

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 states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('local chat projects/workspaces'), which clearly conveys its purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create/get workspace by indicating it lists existing items, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The 'use before selecting a workspace' adds functional context, but the purpose is clear without it.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'use before selecting a workspace.' This indicates when to invoke it relative to other actions. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but the directive is actionable and unambiguous. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is sufficient.

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