peaka_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the discovery purpose and the search-filter context, but it doesn't disclose the return shape or any listing quirks. With annotations handling safety, the description adds modest value beyond them.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste; the purpose is front-loaded and the usage guidance is packed into the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Complete for a simple discovery tool. The single parameter is documented in the schema, annotations carry the safety profile, and the description clarifies its role in the broader workflow. Return-format detail is absent but minor for a list tool with no output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema fully documents the search parameter as an optional case-insensitive name filter. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (List), resource (projects), and scope (accessible for the user), and frames the tool as a discovery entry point for projectIds. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like peaka_get_project_metadata and peaka_list_catalogs by its discovery role.

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 instructs when to use: discover projectIds first, then pass the chosen projectId to subsequent tool calls. This gives clear sequencing context. It doesn't name when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, but the discovery-first guidance is unambiguous for a tool that siblings depend on.

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