list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing a privacy guarantee: no network access and no credential/config paths are returned in the output.

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?

Two terse sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the privacy caveat following. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, yet it only says 'metadata' without indicating which fields come back. The private-scope note helps, but the return contract for a list tool remains underspecified.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; no parameter semantics need explaining and the description correctly stays silent on arguments.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List metadata of locally saved schema versions") and constrains scope to local, saved data. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_project or list_templates, so an agent can't tell from the text alone why it should pick this over get_project.

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?

Usage is only implied — 'list' suggests enumeration, and 'locally saved' hints at the local-only context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., get_project for a single item).

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