list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Lists', but does not disclose pagination, output format, filtering, or any side effects. Minimal value added beyond the name.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is concise without being verbose, though it could incorporate more context without losing efficiency.

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's low complexity, the description provides a fundamental understanding of what it does, but it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., project names/IDs) or any usage notes. With no output schema or annotations, this is a marginal pass.

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 make schema coverage trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; description adds no parameter information, but none is needed, so the baseline stands.

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?

Verb 'Lists' and resource 'available GCP projects' are clear and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_services, but the resource type is specific enough for most agents. Minor deduction for lacking explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer its placement among list_services and other siblings.

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