list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with document counts and descriptions, which is a read-only operation implied by 'List'. It also clarifies it only covers indexed projects. This is transparent enough for a simple list tool, though it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence plus a return summary. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 parameter-less list tool with an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It states the purpose, the scope ('indexed projects'), and the return contents (document counts and descriptions), leaving no important gaps.

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 zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameters, so no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 indexed projects and their statistics, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('indexed projects'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_summary (which targets a single project) and compare_projects (which compares multiple projects).

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 implies usage context: use when you need an overview of all indexed projects. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope ('all indexed projects') and the absence of parameters make the primary use case clear.

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