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 burden. It discloses that the tool shows paper counts and is intended for name discovery, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or what happens if the library is empty. For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, definition of terms, and usage guidance. No wasted 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 has an output schema and zero parameters, the description is complete. It explains what the tool lists and provides use context. For a simple listing tool, no additional details are necessary.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds value by explaining what the output contains (projects, areas, paper counts), though it does not add anything beyond the schema because there are no params.

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 that the tool shows all projects and areas of the paper library with their paper counts, using a specific verb (shows) and resource (projects and areas). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_library (broader listing) and read_paper (single item).

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 advises using this tool before narrowing a search to learn valid names, providing clear context for when to use it. While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to make a selection.

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