ds_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape and the fact that it is a listing (read-like) operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, non-destructive, or any potential limitations (e.g., pagination, filtering). The return format adds some transparency, but additional behavioral details would be needed for a higher score.

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 exactly two sentences, totaling only 10 words. It front-loads the verb and resource, states the return format, and includes no redundant or filler content. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it lists and the exact structure of the returned objects. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not clarify the scope of 'all projects' (e.g., all accessible to the user, all in the system) or whether the list is sorted, but the overall simplicity makes this a minor gap.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the description need not explain any parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description correctly focuses on the return value instead of parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'projects' and explicitly states the return format '[{id, code, name, description}]'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as ds_list_resources or ds_list_workflows, as 'projects' is a unique resource.

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 implies its usage — when you need to see all projects — but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. Since there is no other project-listing sibling tool, this implied usage is adequate, though it lacks explicit exclusions or context.

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