list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and accurately states the read-only listing behavior and returned fields. It does not disclose limit semantics, ordering, or edge cases, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable though not rich.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states scope, the second explains optional filtering and return value relevance.

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?

The description is complete for a simple list tool, especially with an output schema already covering return structure. It adds the key context that returned IDs/URLs are needed for other tools, but does not mention the meaning of 'limit' or pagination behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'search' as a name substring filter, which is helpful, but 'limit' is only recognizable from its name/schema default and is not described in text.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Hex projects in the workspace'), clearly indicating a collection operation. It distinguishes from siblings like get_project by emphasizing plural projects and returning IDs/URLs for use by other tools.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need project IDs, names, or app URLs for other tools, and optionally filtering by name substring. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_project or state when not to use it.

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