project_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true. The description adds the behavioral nuance that projects are 'already registered', implying a stable list, but does not conflict with annotations. No additional traits like rate limits or access needs are disclosed.

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 extremely short (one sentence) and to the point. It communicates the core purpose without extra words, which earns a high score for conciseness, though it might sacrifice detail.

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 complexity (only 1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is too minimal. It lacks any context about filtering, ordering, or what 'already registered' means, and does not compensate for the 0% parameter schema coverage. The output schema's existence reduces the need for return value docs, but the description still misses key usage 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the single parameter 'includeArchived' or its default value. The tool name and description give no hint about this parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the schema only.

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 the tool lists projects that are already registered in persistent storage. The verb 'List' and resource 'projects' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'project_search' by implying a simpler retrieval of all registered projects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_search' or filtered views. There are no indications of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for optimal usage.

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