scanner_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description contributes the 'on the instrument' scope and the exact field list, which tells the agent what shape of data comes back. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no instrument is connected.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list tucked into a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no output schema, listing id/projectName/projectUUID/nextProjectScanID in the description is the only disclosure of return shape and is appropriately included. The remaining gap is only the lack of any note on how downstream tools consume these project identifiers.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The parenthetical does useful double duty by naming returned fields rather than arguments.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus a precise resource ('projects on the instrument') and an enumeration of the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like scanner_scans or scanner_scan_modes by the word 'projects', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus scanner_scans or scanner_status, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. needing a connected instrument). The likely use — resolving project IDs/names for other scanner calls — is left entirely to inference.

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