list_omnifocus_projects

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Lists projects' without disclosing behavior such as filtering, sorting, or authentication requirements. For a read tool, minimal disclosure is acceptable but this is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 short sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with no parameters. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) which could improve scannability, but not detrimental.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what constitutes a 'project' in OmniFocus (e.g., active vs completed, folder hierarchy). Among many OmniFocus sibling tools, this minimal description risks confusion about the tool's scope.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. For zero-parameter tools, baseline is 4, but the description could explain the return format or default behavior, which it does not. Score 3 is adequate.

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 'Lists projects in OmniFocus' clearly identifies the verb (lists) and resource (projects). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_omnifocus_folders and list_omnifocus_tasks. However, it lacks detail on scope (all vs active) which could improve clarity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_omnifocus_folders or search_omnifocus_tasks. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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