List SEToolBox projects

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: the folder-exchange mechanism, the runtime precondition that the app must be running, and the verbatim file return with payload under 'data.projects'. 'Nothing in the app changes' usefully reinforces the read-only annotation; only limits like rate/timeouts are unaddressed.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then follows with behavioral and output details in a logical order. The long enumeration of tool families is informative but slightly verbose; otherwise no wasted sentences.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the field list, the payload location ('data.projects'), the return mechanism, and the runtime precondition. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents timeoutSeconds, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List every project in the user's SEToolBox store') and enumerates the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what this yields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like setoolbox_list_runs or setoolbox_read_project, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name, and it discloses a precondition ('the app must be running with agent runs allowed'), but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as list_runs or read_project, nor any exclusion conditions.

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