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. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema: results are scoped to the signed-in user. It stays silent on pagination, ordering, and whether archived/deleted projects are included, and never explicitly states the operation is read-only (read-only behavior is only implied by "Lists").

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource immediately. The parenthetical synonym is the only addition and it earns its place by disambiguating terminology.

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 parameterless read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no annotations and no output schema there is no structured data to carry the safety profile or describe what a returned project contains. Pagination and ordering behavior remain unstated, leaving the agent to discover them at call time.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter semantics for the description to elaborate on, and it correctly avoids inventing filter options that do not exist in the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Lists all projects") with a clarifying synonym that resolves naming ambiguity: projects are the app's lists. It scopes the result to the signed-in user. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_project, but the plural/collective framing makes the contrast obvious.

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?

States no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the name that this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to get_project; nothing in the text routes it there.

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