List Projects Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds useful result-shape context (client, lead, git repo, last update) that annotations don't cover, but says nothing about ordering, limits, or what the archived default means.

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 sentences, no waste, with the result shape stated first and the usage rule second. Everything is front-loaded and earns its place.

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-required-param read tool with fully documented parameters, this is close to complete: the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the fields returned. Minor gaps are ordering and default archived 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there. The description adds no syntax or matching detail for search or include_archived, so baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (projects) and enumerates the fields returned: client, lead, linked git repo, last update. This distinguishes it from siblings like use_project, project_brief and project_context, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

Gives a concrete selection rule: use it to find the project a piece of work belongs to when the git remote does not match one. That is real when-to-use guidance, but no explicit when-not or named alternative is given, so it stops short of 5.

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