list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining that results combine GUI recent projects with filesystem-sourced projects and that output includes device and bitstream build time. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is stated first, the scope is defined precisely, and the optional parameter is woven in naturally. Every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains what is listed, where results come from, and what fields are shown, without needing to reproduce return-value details already available in the output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. It does mention search_dir inline as an alternative to the default project folder, giving some semantic value. However, it does not fully explain how search_dir is interpreted, such as whether it replaces the default folder, how paths are resolved, or whether search is recursive.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List Efinity projects', and goes on to define the exact scope: the GUI's recent projects plus projects under the default folder or search_dir. It also states what information is returned (device, last bitstream build time), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs or list_reports.

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 gives clear context on what the tool covers, including the optional search_dir override, so an agent can tell when listing projects is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is sufficiently clear without exclusions.

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