list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of transparency. It clearly indicates a read-only listing and describes what is returned (session counts, activity dates). However, it does not mention permissions, performance, or that it excludes projects without history, though that is implied by the phrasing.

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. It front-loads the action ('List all projects') and immediately provides the key context (which projects, what info is included), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and return content adequately. It could explicitly state that projects without history are excluded and mention sorting options, but the schema covers sorting and the restriction is implied, leaving only minor gaps.

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% for the single optional parameter sort_by, including an enum description. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, but the schema already fully documents its semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: 'projects that have Claude Code conversation history'. It also mentions the included information (session counts and activity dates), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_history or find_solutions.

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 implies usage when you want an overview of projects with conversation history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist, but there is no mention of when to choose this over search_history or find_solutions.

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