List Projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It helpfully discloses the ownership scope and the non-obvious fact that agent-created work is included, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or limits. It does at least imply a read-only operation via 'List'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier is placed where it matters most. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but there is zero wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists and no parameters are needed, so the description need not explain return values. However, with no annotations, it leaves the agent guessing about ordering, pagination, and result volume for a list operation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies, and the description's scope note adds a filtering caveat an agent might expect to be able to control.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (projects) plus the ownership scope ('owned by the current principal'). It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling, though no sibling is a competing project-list tool, so ambiguity risk is low.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., how this relates to create_project or to filtering projects some other way). Usage is only implied by the name and scope clause.

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