list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'list repositories' and does not mention what data is returned (e.g., names, metadata), whether the list is exhaustive or paginated, or any access restrictions. This is a minimal description with no additional behavioral context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('List repositories') and immediately provides the purpose ('available to create Conductor workspaces from'). There is no wasted text or unnecessary detail.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explain the return format, whether results are sorted, or how the list is filtered. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects that the description meets the minimum bar but leaves room for clarification about what the output contains.

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 the schema covers 100% by having an empty properties object. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not conflict with the schema.

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 tool lists repositories that can be used to create Conductor workspaces, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('repositories'). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only listing tool among the siblings, though there is slight ambiguity because the tool name is 'list_projects' while the description says 'repositories'.

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 the tool is a precursor to creating workspaces ('available to create Conductor workspaces from'), but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It gives context but no formal usage guidance.

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