project.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, the description does not clarify whether the tool is read-only (likely), what happens if the project_id is invalid, what format the listing returns, or whether it shows nested contents.

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 extremely concise at three words. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. It avoids verbose phrasing while conveying the core action.

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 has no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the structure of the returned listing (files vs. folders, nested or flat), edge cases like empty projects, or how this tool fits into the project lifecycle.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but there is only one parameter (project_id) and the description's context ('list project folders/files') implies what the parameter represents. The description adds minimal meaning beyond 'this is an ID', so a baseline 3 is appropriate given low complexity.

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 project folders and files, using the specific verb 'List' and resource 'project folders/files'. While it distinguishes from other project-related tools like 'project.create_folder' and 'project.create_file', it could be more precise about whether it lists the root contents or recurses into subfolders.

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 'binary.functions' for listing functions or 'session.list' for sessions. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open session) or exclusion criteria.

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