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. It does not explicitly state that this tool is read-only or safe to call repeatedly, nor does it mention any authentication or rate-limit considerations. The functional output is described, but behavioral traits are missing.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear sentence, bullet points for returned fields, and a separate usage guidance paragraph. It is front-loaded and each part serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more terse.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose, returned information, and usage context (UUID requirement for other calls). It provides enough detail for an agent to use it correctly.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no parameter information but there is no need for it.

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 tool lists all projects in the Lightdash organization and specifies the returned fields (UUID, name, type, database connection details, timestamps). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform a similar project listing function.

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 'When to use' section explicitly advises starting here to discover projects or find UUIDs, and mentions the LIGHTDASH_PROJECT_UUID environment variable as an alternative for other tools. No explicit when-not or alternatives are needed since no other tool lists projects.

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