List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the description only needs to add context. It adds the semantic notion of projects as account-scoped 'brand containers', but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the list is complete or truncated.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and the purpose clause second. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no input parameters, complete annotations, and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient for correct invocation. The remaining gap is that nothing describes what a returned project entry looks like (id, name, counts), which matters because the stated purpose is to supply an id for later calls.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The parenthetical noting that project ids group generations is a small amount of useful semantics but no parameter meaning is at stake.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the account projects') and adds a clarifying gloss that these are 'brand containers'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling vivid_list_editor_projects, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 trailing clause 'use a project id to group generations' hints at why an agent would call this (to obtain an id for downstream generation grouping), so usage is implied. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative list_projects-adjacent sibling, leaving selection between them to inference.

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