projects_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it declares read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits. It also discloses the derivation logic behind `has_hands`. It stops short of describing ordering/pagination or volume, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what it lists and its key output field, followed by behavior, then routing guidance. Three tight sentences, each earning its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the derivation rule for the derived flag, and it covers the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the derived `has_hands` output flag rather than leaving it opaque, though it does not discuss any return-shape nuances beyond field names.

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 (every registered project) and enumerates the exact fields returned, including the derived `has_hands` flag with its derivation rule. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `projects_register` and `hands_list`.

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 the primary use case explicitly ('to find the project_id to pass to scoped tools') and names concrete downstream tools, then states when to use alternatives (register with `projects_register`, inspect Hands tools with `hands_list`). Nothing is left to inference.

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