tc_list_projects

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses that the tool queries every region and merges results, and that the refresh parameter re-discovers regions. These are non-obvious behavioral traits that meaningfully aid the agent. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a brief usage note, a compact Args section, and a Returns shape. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool, strong annotations, and an explicit output schema, the description is complete. It covers usage context (find project ID first), behavioral behavior (cross-region merging), parameter semantics, and return structure, leaving no meaningful gaps.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden. It fully explains each parameter: name_filter as a case-insensitive substring and refresh as a region rediscovery flag with a default of False. This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all Trimble Connect projects the signed-in user can access'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it is used to find a project's ID before calling folder/file tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to find a project ID before calling folder/file tools, providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., tc_get_project) or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of full alignment with the highest rating.

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