list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action 'list' and the purpose 'for switching,' but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, handling of invalid workspace IDs, whether archived projects are included, or any side effects (including confirming it is read-only). The absence of these details leaves the agent with insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 a single concise phrase of eight words, front-loading the core function and purpose. There is no redundant or filler content; every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the basic function and hints at its purpose. However, it does not explain what '전환용' (switching) means in practice, whether the list includes all projects or only active ones, or any relationship to set_context. While the output schema likely documents the return shape, the description leaves some ambiguity for an agent about the exact context and any special cases. It is adequate but with clear gaps.

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 schema defines a single integer parameter workspace_id with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description indirectly references '지정 워크스페이스' (specified workspace) which maps to workspace_id, but it does not explain the parameter's meaning, format, or how to obtain a valid workspace ID (e.g., from list_workspaces). The description therefore provides only minimal semantic value 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 clearly states it lists projects within a specified workspace, using the verb 'list' and resource 'projects.' The parenthetical '(전환용)' adds a distinct purpose (for switching), differentiating it from sibling tools like list_workspaces and list_tasks. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 provides a brief usage hint via '(전환용)' (for switching), implying it should be used to retrieve projects when the user intends to switch context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_context or list_workspaces, nor does it mention any prerequisites. This is an implied usage scenario rather than explicit guidance.

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