list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' signals a read-only operation, and the admin-token requirement is a useful authorization disclosure. Still, it does not explicitly rule out side effects or mention pagination, rate limits, or how a null/default token is handled.

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 concise and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the auth requirement and a one-line parameter explanation. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential action, resource, and auth condition. The main gap is the ambiguity between the schema's optional token and the description's 'Requires admin token' statement, which could affect correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args line identifies admin_token as an 'Admin authentication token,' which adds a little meaning beyond the schema's title 'Admin Token' and default null. However, it mostly restates the schema, and the contradiction between 'Requires admin token' and the schema making the parameter optional is left unresolved.

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 opens with 'List all registered projects,' a specific verb and resource that makes the tool's function unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_project, get_project_context, and list_memories, which operate on different resources or actions.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Requires admin token') and implies the tool is for retrieving the full project list. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_project_context or search_by_file, leaving comparison to inference.

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