list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states it is a read operation ('List'), but does not disclose any potential side effects, limitations, or rate limits. For a 0-parameter list tool, the transparency is adequate but lacking extra behavioral details.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides context and usage guidance efficiently.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what its results contain, and how it relates to sibling tools. No missing elements.

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%. The baseline is 4, and the description adds context about what each project contains (survey questions, audiences), which is helpful beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'all research projects', clearly stating the tool's output scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning it is for discovery before using ask_project or ask_audience.

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 instructs to use it to discover projects before using ask_project or ask_audience, providing clear context on when to use this tool. It could be slightly improved by mentioning when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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