list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Lists' implies a read-only operation and 'accessible to the authenticated user' clarifies the authorization scope, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response format. This is adequate but not rich.

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, well-constructed sentence that states the action and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter list tool, the description is essentially complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and auth context. It could add output-shape or pagination details, but these are not necessary for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The schema coverage is 100% and the description needs no parameter detail; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and names the resource ('all Stitch projects'), adding the scope 'accessible to the authenticated user.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_project, create_project, and delete_project.

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 phrase 'Lists all Stitch projects' gives a clear context for when to call it: when the agent needs an enumeration of projects available to the user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear for a zero-parameter list operation.

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