emacs_project_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical clarifies that both project systems are covered, but the description is silent on output shape, merging/deduplication, or error cases. It is minimally transparent but not detailed.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the key verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds necessary scope about supported project systems.

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 tool, the description is nearly sufficient. However, with no output schema, the agent is not told whether the result is project names or paths, or how the two backends are combined, so a little more context would help.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies; the description accurately implies an unparameterized list action.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('List known projects') and adds scope ('supports both project.el and projectile'), making the action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling project tools such as emacs_project_current or emacs_project_switch, so sibling differentiation is not fully explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for enumerating available projects rather than for switching to one or inspecting the current project.

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