list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature or side effects. The description only says 'Lista' (lists), which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or requires any permissions. No additional context about behavior is given.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately, followed by a clarifying detail about index.html. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource and includes a detail about the expected contents (index.html). It does not describe the return format or pagination, but for a simple list operation this may be sufficient. The omission of response structure prevents a perfect score.

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 the input schema is complete with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 the tool lists HyperFrames projects in the workspace, using the specific verb 'Lista' and the resource 'proyectos HyperFrames del workspace'. It also adds detail about each project having an index.html. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_compositions, relying on the resource type alone to imply distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_compositions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name. There is no mention of when not to use it or any preconditions.

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