list_projects

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only and describes the return shape as an array of { id, name }. That is meaningful beyond the scalar value of the tool.

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 three short sentences, each adding distinct value: read-only disclosure, the listing scope and output shape, and when to invoke it. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is complete: it says what it returns, that it is read-only, and how to use it first to obtain a projectId. No hidden behavior or missing necessary context remains.

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 100% schema coverage baseline is 4. The description need not document parameter behavior, and it appropriately offers no invented parameter 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 states a specific action (list projects/folders) and clearly specifies what each result contains (id and name). It is not a tautology and it identifies the tool's distinct purpose within the sibling set, since no other sibling is a project listing tool.

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 gives explicit usage context: call this first to discover a projectId needed for get_task, create_task, or update_task. It does not name a direct alternative tool or explicitly say when not to use it, but this is a discovery-first listing tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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