List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's 'Read-only' is pure repetition. Beyond that it offers the internal call names and the field list, but the one behavioral rule it does state (include=full) references a parameter that does not exist in the schema, which misleads an agent trying to trigger the full-record path.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the verb and resource, so nothing is wasted on filler. However, the content is dense with implementation jargon (getShowList, configId, getFirmwareById) and combines two distinct operations into one run-on sentence, hurting readability more than length does.

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 output schema, the field enumeration is a genuinely useful addition. But the description leaves the core invocation ambiguous, since the only documented switch (`include=full`) does not match the actual `id` parameter, so an agent cannot reliably reach the full-config behavior it describes.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is `id`, documented in the schema as returning the full record for that configId. The description instead names a different parameter, `include=full`, which contradicts the schema and gives an agent a wrong invocation path; this actively subtracts value rather than adding it.

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 verb+resource is stated ('List CyberBrick projects') and the returned fields are enumerated, but the second sentence muddies the purpose by describing a single-project fetch ('fetch one project's complete config body'), so it is unclear whether the tool is a lister or a getter. Internal function names (getShowList, getFirmwareById) add noise rather than clarity and do nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as project_state or project_load.

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?

Only 'Read-only.' hints at usage context. There is no guidance on when to pick this over project_state, project_load, or project_open_editor, and no statement of prerequisites. The only conditional ('Pass include=full') is attached to an undocumented, contradictory mechanism.

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