project_list

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

With no annotations provided to indicate safety or side effects, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify the return format, what constitutes a 'project' in this context, or behavior when no projects exist.

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 a single, efficient six-word sentence with no redundant phrases or filler content. The essential information (action, scope, domain) is front-loaded and immediately accessible.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description meets minimum viability by identifying the core operation. However, without annotations or return value documentation, the agent lacks critical context about the response format and operational constraints.

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 contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description does not introduce phantom parameters or create confusion, appropriately matching the empty schema structure.

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 'List' with the clear resource 'all projects in Taskwarrior', establishing the tool's function effectively. While it correctly identifies the domain (projects) distinct from task-oriented siblings like create_task, it lacks explicit contrastive language to differentiate use cases from similar list operations.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites for its use. Although the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) makes its usage somewhat self-evident, there is no mention of when to prefer this over filtering tasks by project or how it relates to project discovery workflows.

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