List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the word 'all', which weakly implies no filtering or pagination, and says nothing about ordering, result size, or whether deleted projects appear.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized for a simple list operation, though the brevity comes at the cost of the detail missing elsewhere.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description need not explain return values or safety. However, with an entirely undocumented use_test_db parameter, the definition falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it 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 single parameter use_test_db has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. An agent cannot tell whether this switches the backing database or merely reads a test fixture, which is a meaningful behavioral decision the description should have carried.

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 resource (registered projects), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_project or register_project, relying on the reader to infer that this is the enumeration counterpart.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_project (single) or register_project (create), and no mention of prerequisites or expected context. For a project-introspection family with four siblings, the routing information is absent.

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