list_available_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that projects with configuration files are shown, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., empty list). The description is acceptable for a simple listing tool but could be more transparent.

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 very concise: three sentences for purpose, returns, and an example. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds necessary information 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and a simple output (list of project names), the description is complete. It explains what it returns and gives a usage example, which suffices for AI invocation.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by specifying the return value ('List of available project names') and providing an example. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'List all configured projects' and 'Shows all projects that have configuration files available,' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (configured projects). Among sibling tools that handle workflow steps or specific project details, this tool is distinct and its purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description only states what the tool does—list projects—without any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_project_info or list_workflow_steps. No when-not or scoping constraints are mentioned, though the context of listing all projects is implied.

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