n8n_list_projects

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose pagination, filtering, permission requirements, or what exactly 'all projects' means (e.g., archived vs. active). Since annotation already declares read-only, the description should add something extra to merit a higher score.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter read-only tool. However, it is minimal rather than genuinely informative, so it doesn't earn a 5 for helpfulness.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation, the description is functionally complete: an agent can invoke it without further clarification. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the description names the resource type. A 4 reflects that it is sufficient but not enriched with any contextual depth.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and 'List all projects' correctly implies there are no configuration options. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 'List all projects.' uses a clear verb and resource, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the resource name 'projects' distinguishes it from list_workflows, list_tags, etc. A 5 would require explicit distinction or additional scoping.

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. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or sibling tools that might be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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