List projects

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the scoping detail that this shows the user's own projects and supports an optional workspace filter. No return/pagination/auth details are given, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the use case and the optional filter are both conveyed efficiently.

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?

This is a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no nested objects or output schema. The description adequately covers when to use it and what filtering is possible. A mention of return shape could help slightly, but for this complexity it is not a meaningful gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the workspaceId parameter is already documented as filtering to that workspace ID. The description's mention of 'optionally filtered to one workspace' reinforces the idea but adds no new meaning 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 identifies the action ('see' list) and resource ('Lizard projects'), and it adds the optional workspace filtering scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like project_create or workspace_list, so it falls short of a 5, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 starts with 'Use this when the user wants to see their Lizard projects', which directly states the intended triggering condition. It does not provide explicit exclusions or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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