get-projects

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

The description adds behavioral context by noting the type distinction (folders have type='folder', projects/labels have type=null). However, with no annotations, it does not fully disclose aspects like read-only nature or permissions, though the name 'get' implies safety.

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 plus a brief note. Every word is informative and non-redundant, making it highly efficient.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what to expect in return (type field distinction). It is complete for a simple list tool.

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?

There are no parameters (100% schema coverage), so the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the return structure's type difference. This helps an agent understand the output without an output 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 'List all projects and folders,' which is a clear verb plus resource. It further distinguishes between folders and projects/labels by their type, making the purpose specific and 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get-tasks or get-calendars. It implies usage for project/folder retrieval but lacks exclusionary language or alternative suggestions.

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