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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only listing operation ('List projects'), which is reasonably clear. However, it doesn't disclose anything about output ordering, pagination, instance-specific behavior, or what happens when no projects exist. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds useful context about what projects are. Two sentences with no waste; appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple list operation with one parameter, an output schema, and clear read-only intent, the description covers the essentials. It names the resource, explains the organizing role of projects, and is sufficient for an agent to select this tool vs. the application-focused siblings. No output format details are needed since an output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description carries full parameter documentation burden. However, there is only one parameter ('instance') whose very similar description already exists in the schema. The description adds nothing about what 'instance' means or how it affects results beyond what the schema states, which is minimal. With 1 parameter and no coverage, this is a baseline scenario.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('ArgoCD projects') with a clarifying note that projects organize and control application access. It distinguishes from the sibling tools, which are all application/cluster-focused operations, though it doesn't explicitly name the distinction.

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 provides some context about what projects are ('organize and control application access') but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion criteria vs. alternatives. It's a simple list operation, so the need for extensive guidance is modest, but no alternative tools are named.

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