List RIS projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds real context beyond them: it runs under the desktop session login, never prompts for credentials, and the response carries server, userName and clientId. The 'no undo step' phrasing is largely redundant with readOnlyHint=true, keeping this just short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the routing hints are compact. One clause, 'Read-only, no undo step,' restates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped, but overall the text is dense and earns most of its length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it helpfully names the key fields and their downstream use. Combined with full annotation coverage and a fully documented parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the ambiguity against the other RIS/folder list tools is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'permission' parameter already has a detailed enum description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself (the projectId mention refers to an output field, not an input), so it earns no lift above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the folders and projects of the logged-in client on the Rillsoft Integration Server') and enumerates the returned identity fields (projectId, versionId, uuid, name, code, path, lock, template). It also disambiguates from nearby siblings: local project files go through rillsoft_project_file_open, and the returned projectId is the input for rillsoft_project_ris_open.

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?

Explicitly names the follow-up tool that consumes its output (rillsoft_project_ris_open) and the alternative for local files (rillsoft_project_file_open), which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It does not, however, address when to prefer it over the similar rillsoft_folder_ris_list or rillsoft_portfolio_ris_list siblings, so the disambiguation is incomplete.

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