list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it: no statement that the operation is read-only, no pagination or scope behavior, no auth requirements, no hint of what a 'memory count' represents. Only the word 'Projects' plus a count vaguely implies a non-mutating enumeration.

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?

Five words with zero filler — nothing redundant and the resource is front-loaded. It is terse almost to the point of being a label rather than a description, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool is genuinely simple (no params, no nested schema), but there is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return value could be explained — and 'memory counts' is left undefined. With the safety profile also absent from annotations, the definition is only marginally complete.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or duplicates a parameter it does not have.

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 fragment 'Projects with memory counts' does identify the resource (projects) and the payload (memory counts), but it lacks a verb and never states that it lists or enumerates anything. It is also not distinguishable from the other read-oriented siblings (recall, get_context) beyond the resource noun, so purpose is only implied.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among recall/get_context/export_markdown, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before recalling memory.

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