List Projects

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the burden is lower. The description adds the critical workflow context that this is the entry point and that an empty result should trigger sync_project, which is genuinely useful behavioral guidance beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with 'Start here.' Every sentence earns its place by conveying scope, output fields, dependency for other tools, and failure handling.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema, annotations cover safety), the description is complete enough to call and interpret correctly. It could mention pagination or the exact output shape, but for a bootstrap listing tool this is sufficient.

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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed and focuses on output semantics instead.

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/codebases), and explicitly lists the returns (size, language, project name). It also positions itself relative to siblings by noting its output is required for every other tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here' and 'You need the project name for every other tool', establishing when to call it and why. It also names the remediation path (sync_project) when the result is empty, which is a clear when-and-what-else instruction.

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