list_projects

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait not evident from the schema: the result set may be incomplete (shared/team projects can be missing). This is critical for an agent to know. It also provides a workaround. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does it well.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It leads with the primary action and follows with a critical caveat, earning its place entirely.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and key limitations. It could mention return format but that is not necessary for basic usage.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (project_type) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning. This meets the baseline for adequate parameter semantics.

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's purpose: to list FlutterFlow projects for the authenticated user. The verb 'list' and resource 'projects' are specific, and this is distinct from sibling tools like list_pages or list_project_files, which list sub-resources.

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?

Provides useful usage context by warning that shared/team projects may be missing and advising how to obtain a missing project ID from the FlutterFlow editor. This implies when to use the tool and offers a fallback, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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