memory_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'list', indicating a read operation, but lacks details on whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited. While the behavior is simple, additional context (e.g., 'returns all projects without filtering') would improve 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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is highly concise and easy to parse.

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 (no parameters, output schema present), the description is largely complete. However, it lacks contextual guidance distinguishing it from memory_list, which could be a sibling. The output schema likely covers return values, so no further detail is critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no semantic detail about parameters, but none are needed. The name and description already convey the action.

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 'List all registered projects' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('projects'), making the tool's action and scope clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_list (which likely lists memories) and memory_project_info (which focuses on a single project).

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 implies use when you need to see all projects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as memory_project_info for specific details. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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