fusion_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the tool's role in the save workflow and what 'active' means. It also discloses the connection to fusion_save_document / _as, which is helpful behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 concise, grammatically complete, and front-loads the core function. Every word serves a purpose, and the clarification about active project is integrated smoothly.

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 read-only, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, its relevance to save operations, and the active project concept. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.

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 parametersaine the schema is trivial. The description fully covers what the tool does without needing parameter explanations; there is nothing missing in this dimension.

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 Fusion projects a document can be saved into and identifies which is active. It uses specific verbs and resources ('project', 'active'), and distinguishes its purpose from related save tools by explaining how it relates to saving.

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 implicitly conveys usage context: to check available projects before saving a never-saved document. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but given the zero-parameter nature and clear function, the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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