list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the word "List". It does not say whether results are paginated, whether all projects or only favorites/active ones are returned, whether ordering is guaranteed, or what permission scope is required.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope followed by the intended use. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a "project" record contains beyond an id (e.g., name, status), leaving the agent to discover the response shape by trial. Adding that one clause would make it complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the Planeshift projects of the current user"), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling create-style tools (notes, meetings, todos, links). It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource scope is unique enough that no confusion is likely.

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?

"Use it to find a project id" tells the agent the concrete situation that selects this tool, which is more than a generic listing description. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative lookup path, but the context is clear.

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