sdlc_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-established. The description adds behavioral context by stating it returns a Markdown-formatted list and includes which artifacts have been generated and how many UI screens exist, giving more detail than the annotations alone. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured with a concise summary, a clear usage sentence, and separate Args and Returns sections. It uses just enough detail to be informative without redundancy, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional filter, the description covers the purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not mention pagination or potential large result sizes, but given the annotations and the simplicity of the operation, this is adequate. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) further reduces the need to detail return fields.

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?

Although schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the description compensates by explaining the single 'params' argument and its nested 'status_filter' property, including the valid status values ('DRAFT', 'ACTIVE', 'COMPLETED', 'ARCHIVED'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema structure, even though the schema does contain a description for status_filter internally.

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 SDLC Assist projects with their status and artifact completion, and specifies it returns a summary of every project including generated artifacts and UI screen counts. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like sdlc_get_project_summary or sdlc_get_artifact, which focus on individual project details.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover project IDs for other tools,' which provides a clear use case and context. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, this guidance is sufficient to understand when to invoke this tool versus sibling tools that target specific projects.

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