rms_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description only mentions that the tool works without a workspace root but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns cached data. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 consists of two short sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds a crucial contextual note. Every sentence 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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the tool's output (list of project keys) and a key behavior (works without workspace root). However, it does not describe the return format or whether the list is sorted or filtered, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly avoids extraneous detail.

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 states it lists RMS Memory project keys, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered RMS Memory project keys'). The additional note about working without a workspace root helps distinguish it from tools that may require one, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its siblings.

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 implies usage when a workspace root is missing ('works even when the MCP client did not provide a workspace root'), but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools among the siblings.

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