lore_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses that the tool lists accessible organizations and projects, implying a read-only operation. It also transparently explains that the API token is personal and spans all orgs, which clarifies authorization behavior.

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 consists of three concise sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides token context, and the third gives a usage reference, all front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how it is grouped, and how to use it (including a reference to /lore:init). No additional information is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds significant meaning by explaining the output structure (grouped by organization) and the practical use case, going beyond the empty 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 explicitly states the tool lists organizations and projects, grouped by organization. It specifies the scope (personal and joined orgs) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing its use for linking repos to projects, as seen in the sibling names list (no other listing tool).

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 clearly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to pick or confirm which project a repo should be linked to (see /lore:init).' It also explains the token's scope, providing contextual guidance for usage.

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