raskadr_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool does not modify projects, which is a meaningful safety guarantee. However, it does not mention return format, error behavior, or whether it scans local storage, leaving some uncertainty about the operation's behavior.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the action, the resource, and the safety property in a compact form, which is ideal for a zero-parameter 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 simple read-only list operation, the description captures the essential elements: what it lists, where those items are located, and that it does not modify them. The exact return structure is not specified, but the verb 'List' reasonably implies a collection of projects. It could be more complete by pointing to raskadr_inspect_project for per-project details, but this is not strictly necessary for invoking the tool correctly.

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 and an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are no parameters to document. This is a case where the schema fully covers the parameter surface, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('local CapCut desktop projects'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also adds the scope 'without modifying them,' which reinforces its read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like raskadr_inspect_project, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as raskadr_inspect_project or raskadr_check_compatibility. The phrase 'without modifying them' implies a safe listing operation, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion statements to help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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