list_projects

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses 'Read-only; touches no project memory', which is a meaningful side-effect guarantee the agent could not infer from the schema. It also reveals the output's key trait (active project) beyond a mere listing.

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?

Three short sentences in logical order: what it does, when to call it, and its safety guarantee. Every sentence earns its place; the trigger conditions are front-loaded and the read-only note closes it efficiently.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned, the two scenarios that warrant calling it, and the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object and the description appropriately doesn't invent parameter details. Mentioning the `project` parameter of other tools is contextual routing guidance, not parameter documentation, and it aids correct invocation.

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 ('List'), a defined resource ('projects this server can reach'), and the distinguishing output ('which one is active'). This differentiates it from the sibling current_project, which presumably returns only the active project rather than the full set.

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?

Provides explicit trigger conditions: 'Call this when a tool answers "No project selected"' and 'when you need the exact name to pass as `project`'. It gives clear context for when to invoke, though it doesn't name sibling alternatives or spell out 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.