list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait — results are permission-scoped to the caller's access — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, whether archived/inaccessible projects appear, or what fields each entry contains. For a zero-parameter read this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first defines the output set, the second states the calling order and the value to carry forward. The most actionable instruction (call this first) is placed prominently.

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 trivial no-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the identifying field to extract. Only the enumeration of returned project fields is left unspecified, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Zero parameters means there is nothing to document, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by naming project_id as the salient output the agent must reuse, telling it what to extract from the response.

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 and resource ('List the projects') plus an access scope ('you have access to'), which no sibling tool covers — the sibling set is all logs/metrics/query tools. An agent can identify the tool's role as a discovery entry point without opening the schema.

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?

'Call this first to get a project_id to pass to the other tools' gives explicit sequencing and the downstream purpose of the result, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a prerequisite tool. It stops short of stating exclusions or when it can be skipped, so it is not a full 5.

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