list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses that it only returns 'title + id' and that it is scoped to projects the user has access to. However, it does not describe anything about pagination defaults, ordering, or whether archived projects are included. For a read-only list tool this is adequate but lacks richer behavioral detail.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the action ('List...') and then add a brief explanation of what a project is and the return fields. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or bloat.

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 the simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the scope ('you have access to'), and the return shape ('title + id'). It could have explicitly mentioned the available pagination params, but since the schema already documents them, the description is sufficient for a list endpoint. A perfect score is held back because it does not mention any potential errors or limits.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and offset) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it simply mentions 'title + id' for the return, which is not parameter-related. Baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List the Harmonica projects (workspaces) you have access to.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions by focusing on projects/workspaces, and adds context that projects group sessions and can be published as a sensemaking topic. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 statement 'you have access to' sets a clear context for when to use the tool (i.e., to retrieve the user's accessible projects). It implies the tool is for listing, not for retrieving detailed session data, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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