List OmniFocus projects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does indicate the output includes folder path and status, but it leaves the meaning of 'all projects' ambiguous—specifically, whether dropped projects are included by default or only when the includeDropped parameter is set. This ambiguity reduces transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded. It states the verb, resource, and key output details with zero wasted words.

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, the description covers the core purpose and output. However, the presence of the optional includeDropped parameter introduces an important ambiguity around what 'all projects' means, and the description does not clarify this. There is no output schema, so the description should provide more complete context.

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 input schema has one boolean parameter (includeDropped) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, therefore it fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's bare type definition. Given the low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('all projects'), and the output fields ('folder path and status'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like of_list_tasks, which lists tasks instead of projects.

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 intended usage is evident: use this tool to list OmniFocus projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient implicit guidance.

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