list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation. It also adds useful behavioral detail by specifying that only active projects are returned and that each project includes its most recent scan. Minor caveats like ordering or empty-result behavior are not mentioned, but they are not critical for a simple listing tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the action and resource are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the active filter, and the scan detail included in results. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly signaling read-only safety or clarifying its relationship to list_scans, but the low complexity makes these gaps minor.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the schema already covers all parameter semantics vacuously. The description adds value by indicating what the result includes—active projects with their most recent scan—which is the relevant semantic content for this tool.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('active DefAudit projects') and adds the distinctive result detail ('their most recent scan'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_scans, which focus on scan records rather than 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?

The description conveys a reasonable sense of scope—listing active projects—but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over list_scans or how it relates to the scan-focused siblings. The intended usage is implied by the tool name and sibling names rather than stated directly.

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