grove_project_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description's contribution is the local-only guarantee ("nothing is sent to GitHub or any other service"), which adds some privacy context, but the read-only claim largely restates the annotations and nothing is said about ordering, total counts, or empty results.

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 short sentences: capability first, then the selection hint, then a trust constraint. No filler, no repetition of field names already in the schema, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a high level (paginated list of registered projects) and when to reach for it. Only the shape of returned project records (what fields identify a name vs. an id) is left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, with limit (default 50, max 200) and offset fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the word "paginated," which frames the intended use of those parameters but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 registered projects") and adds scope ("paginated"), so an agent immediately knows it returns a collection rather than a single record like grove_project_get. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"Use to find a project name or id" gives a concrete selection condition, telling the agent this is the discovery step before calling get/create/scan tools that need an identifier. No when-not-to-use case or named alternative is given, so it stops at clear context without exclusions.

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