project_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses the state flags surfaced (warm engine attached, saved .ioc exists), which an agent could not infer elsewhere, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty-state behavior, or whether the call has any side effects.

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?

A single sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and the returned fields packed into a tight parenthetical. No filler text.

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 annotations and no output schema, the field enumeration in the description is what makes the return value legible, and it covers the important state flags. Missing only minor operational details such as ordering or whether the list is exhaustive.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical instead usefully describes the response shape, which is a reasonable substitute.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus bounded resource ("CubeMX projects known to this server"), and it enumerates the fields returned (id, MCU, toolchain, warm engine, saved .ioc). It distinguishes itself from project_get by being a roster rather than a single-project lookup, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 read-only listing intent is implied by "List" and the scoping phrase "known to this server," but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus project_get or the catalog/family listings, and no stated preconditions.

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