List Projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'List all projects with deck info', implying a read-only operation that returns a list, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'List all projects with deck info.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the scope ('all projects') and additional info ('with deck info').

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 complexity (simple list operation with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a list tool, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps, such as not explaining what 'deck info' includes or how results are structured.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it appropriately avoids unnecessary details.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'projects', specifying that it includes 'deck info'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_decks' (which lists decks) and 'list_cards' (which lists cards). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_activity' or 'list_conversations', which might also involve projects indirectly, so it's not fully specific about sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for active projects only or includes archived ones. With siblings like 'list_decks' and 'list_cards', there's no indication of when to prefer this tool over those.

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