offsets__list_projects

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

No annotations are provided. The description accurately states 'list all registered restoration projects with their metadata,' which implies a read-only operation. However, no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination, data freshness) are disclosed.

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 a domain prefix. Every word is necessary, and it efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous text.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns (project metadata). No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret the operation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all registered restoration projects') and the content ('with their metadata'), which is meaningful beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states it lists all registered restoration projects with their metadata, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like offsets__list_credit by specifying 'restoration projects' and 'verified-credit carbon offset clearinghouse' domain context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like offsets__register_project or offsets__net_position. However, for a simple list-all operation with no parameters, the usage is self-evident from the description.

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