list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behavioral details: it lists only visible projects, includes folder existence status, and counts readable source files. This goes beyond a bare 'list' and helps set expectations, though it omits edge cases like empty results or error behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by useful detail and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the essential aspects: what it lists, what state it reports, and when to use it. The sibling context further clarifies its role in the workflow.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds meaning by explaining what the returned entries contain, making it unnecessary to speculate about parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Lists the projects you have made visible to project-mcp') and differentiates from sibling tools like list_files and read_code by focusing on projects as a distinct entity.

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?

Explicitly advises to 'Start here to see what is available before reading or searching,' which gives clear timing guidance and implicitly points to sibling tools (read_code, search_code) as later steps. Does not name alternatives explicitly, hence not a 5.

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