list_projects

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

The word 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description specifies the exact source directory and inclusion rule, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or what happens when no projects match. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and provides only minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 that front-loads the primary action and immediately provides the key filtering detail. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 listing tool with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, the location, and the inclusion rule. It could additionally clarify whether 'directories under' means immediate children or recursive matches, but overall the context is adequate for this simple tool.

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 are no parameter semantics to clarify. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the empty schema leaves no ambiguity and the description correctly focuses entirely on the tool's behavior.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'active projects', and further defines what counts as active: directories under `05-projects/` containing a README.md. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_areas, which would target a different hierarchical namespace.

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 gives the selection criterion but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_areas or search_notes. There is no when-not guidance, so an agent must infer from the name and description rather than being directed to the right sibling.

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