overleaf_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 that this is a read/list operation (non-destructive, no authentication requirement stated), but doesn't mention potential pagination, rate limits, or what happens when no projects exist. The description is simple and safe but lacks depth; a 3 is appropriate given the minimal risk and zero parameters.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a usage hint. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, read-only purpose), the description covers the essential context: what it lists, for whom, and when to use it. It could mention that the output is a list of project names+IDs, but that's already implied by the first sentence. It's complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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, so there is no schema semantic burden. The description appropriately focuses on the output (projects and IDs) rather than parameters. This is a valid baseline for a parameterless 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 explicitly states the tool lists the logged-in user's Overleaf projects and their IDs, with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('Overleaf projects'). It distinguishes itself from siblings that operate on files or create projects, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It provides clear usage guidance by stating 'Use this first when the project ID is unknown,' which is a practical trigger for an agent. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., overleaf_list_files, overleaf_open_project) makes the usage situation reasonably clear.

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