list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description declares it is read-only and returns an array of project summary objects. It does not detail the exact output fields or potential errors, but for a simple list tool it is fairly transparent.

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 extremely concise—three sentences covering purpose, return type, and parameters. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what is listed, that it's read-only, and that it returns an array of summary objects. Missing detail on exact output fields, but overall adequate.

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). According to the rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no additional parameter info beyond the schema.

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 it lists all projects under apps/ with specific fields (platform type, initialization status, session context). It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like project_init or project_analyze.

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 says 'List all projects' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like project_status or other listing tools. No comparisons or exclusions are mentioned.

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