List CMake projects and build directories

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, local read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it enumerates the fields returned per build directory (generator, build type, File API reply freshness), which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't mention performance/rescanning cost or caching behavior, which would be valuable given the rescan parameter.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on the data returned. It is appropriately concise with no filler, though it could be slightly clearer with a shorter opening clause.

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 no output schema and a simple input schema, the description does a fair job of describing return contents. However, it lacks guidance on usage context, alternative tools, and any prerequisites (e.g., whether the workspace must be configured). For a listing tool among many project-graph siblings, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'rescan' is fully documented in the schema. No parameters are required, so the tool can be called with no arguments. The description doesn't repeat parameter details, which is appropriate when the schema is complete; baseline would be 3-4, and given the parameter is simple and well-described, a 4 is reasonable.

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 (lists) and resource (top-level CMake source projects and build directories) with detail about what each entry contains (source→build mapping, generator/build type, File API reply status). It is clear what the tool returns. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_project_summary or list_targets, which also operate on the project graph.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_summary or list_targets. The description only explains what it lists, not the conditions under which an agent should call it or what preconditions exist (e.g., whether a prior scan is required).

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