list_projects

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the description consistently aligns with them—no contradiction. It adds only the return-value focus ('stable IDs'), which is a small behavioral contribution beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or output size.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place: verb, scope, resource, and an output-relevant detail. The example is exactly as concise as a flat list tool needs.

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 list tool with stable output hints in the description, little more is required. The description covers what the tool returns ('stable IDs') despite the absence of an output schema, which helps the agent interpret downstream steps like get_run and read_artifact. Minor missing context on filtering or scoping is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per calibration, 0 params earns a baseline of 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing fake parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Open Science projects'), and output content ('stable IDs'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions and list_artifacts by naming the project resource, and from create_project by the verb. An agent can reliably route to this tool without opening the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like list_sessions, list_artifacts, and create_project, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The name 'list_projects' implies against the siblings, but nothing is stated.

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