workflow_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose useful behavior: cached vs. live refresh, reading state from disk, and the phase/timestamp fields shown. However, it does not mention potential side effects of refresh (e.g., cache updates), performance costs, or failure behavior, so it 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clarifying sentence and focused parameter semantics. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 a single optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the output scope, the fields shown, and the refresh behavior. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when to use this tool in relation to its many siblings, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.

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 provides only a boolean refresh with a default, so schema coverage is effectively 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining exactly what refresh=True and refresh=False do, including the trade-off between live state and speed. This is a clear value-add beyond the structured schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List all known projects managed by this server.' It clarifies scope by noting it shows projects that were 'detected, initialized, or set up,' which helps distinguish it from more targeted tools. However, it does not explicitly reference any sibling tool to differentiate itself, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the refresh parameter's behavior but does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like workflow_status, workflow_detect, or workflow_init. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. The context is only implied by the wording 'List all known projects.'

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