list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the behavior as listing all visible projects. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation, but the intent is clear. More detail on what 'visible to the configured user' means could be added.

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?

Two sentences, no superfluous words. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. It covers what is listed and when to use. Could optionally mention the return format, but not required given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level details, but it correctly implies no input is needed.

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 it lists all projects visible to the user, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('testing-platform projects'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'find_project' by noting use cases for when project id is unknown or disambiguation is needed.

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 clear guidance on when to use: when the project id is unknown or to disambiguate names. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling tools list implies alternatives like 'find_project' for direct lookup.

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