list_projects

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits' and explains the derived has_hands flag condition, exceeding minimal requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, then usage and alternatives. Every sentence provides unique value with no redundancy or padding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and absence of output schema/annotations, the description fully covers return fields, behavioral assurances, and usage context. It is complete for a simple list operation.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage vacuously). Per rubric, 0 parameters earns baseline 4; the description adds no parameter detail but none is needed.

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 'List every registered project' with specific output fields (id, name, absolute path, has_hands flag), making the action and resource unmistakable. It also distinguishes from siblings by explaining this tool provides the project_id for scoped tools and contrasting with register_project/list_hands.

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 tells when to use: 'Use to find the project_id to pass to scoped tools' and lists those tools. Also directs to register_project for registration and list_hands for Hands inspection, clearly covering alternatives.

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