projects.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it declares 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits' and explains the derived has_hands flag semantics. This goes well beyond a simple operation summary.

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 tightly organized: the core behavior and output fields come first, then behavioral guarantees, then usage guidance, then alternatives. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is fully sufficient: it lists the returned fields, defines the only non-obvious flag, states the operation's safety profile, and explains how to use the result with scoped tools. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on output fields instead, which is useful given there is no output schema; baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every registered project with id, name, absolute path, and a derived has_hands flag.' It clearly differentiates from related siblings like projects.register and hands.list by stating what this tool is and is not.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use to find the project_id to pass to scoped tools' with concrete examples. It also names alternatives for adjacent actions—'To register a new project use projects.register; to inspect its Hands tools use hands.list'—making when-to-use and when-not-to-use unambiguous.

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