list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key filtering behavior (only projects with test cases are listed) and 'list' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or whether 'all projects' includes archived or hidden projects. The description is minimal but acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word contributes value, and there is no superfluous information. It is an example of concise, effective specification.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool returns (a list of projects) and the filtering condition. It does not explain return value structure, but 'list' implies a collection, and the simple nature of the tool makes this sufficient. No major gaps are apparent.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying the output scope—projects with test cases—which is not evident from the empty schema. Since there are no parameters to document, the description effectively covers the semantic context.

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's function: 'List all projects that have test cases stored.' It specifies the verb (list), the resource (projects), and a qualifying condition. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like list_test_cases (which lists test cases, not projects) and generate_test_cases.

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 the usage context—when you need projects that have test cases—but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. There is no guidance such as 'for projects without test cases, use X' or comparison to project_report. Thus, usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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