list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'List[s] all projects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, how results are ordered/paginated, or what format the output takes. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the lack of parameters or output format, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, project fields included) or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a list operation that might return critical data, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as the description needn't compensate for missing schema details.

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 resource ('projects in the task management system'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also specifies inclusion of 'default projects (Chore and Repeatable)', which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project' or 'search_tasks', preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_project' (for single project retrieval) and 'search_tasks' (for task-focused queries), the description should indicate this is for retrieving all projects without filtering. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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