list_shiped_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description states what is returned. However, it does not mention authentication expectations, pagination, error conditions, or whether an empty list is possible. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action 'List' and immediately states the resource and output. Every word contributes meaningful 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?

For a simple zero-parameter list with no output schema, the description adequately conveys scope ('user's deployed projects') and content ('URLs'). It could go further by describing the response shape or auth context, but the low complexity means no serious information gap exists.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4 because the description cannot be expected to add parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('deployed projects on Shiped'), and the output ('their URLs'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_shiped_project and deploy_to_shiped because the operation is clearly a read-only listing.

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 conveys the basic context: it lists the user's deployed projects. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the delete or deploy siblings, though the tool names imply the appropriate use case. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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