list-projects

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description goes beyond by providing extensive context about what projects are (sota.io, GDPR, auto-URL, PostgreSQL, etc.), which helps the agent understand the domain. It does not disclose any hidden behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover, but it adds useful context.

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 for the core purpose, followed by a long sentence detailing sota.io features. The core action is front-loaded and clear. The additional information, while somewhat lengthy, provides valuable context for the agent. It is not overly verbose for the value it adds.

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, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the domain context, and the nature of the projects listed. There are no gaps in understanding what the tool returns or requires.

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 coverage is 100% with 0 parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond what the schema already shows. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'projects on your sota.io account', which is specific. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create-project and delete-project, but it does not explicitly distinguish from other list tools like list-domains, so it is not a perfect 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?

The description implies this is a straightforward listing tool with no parameters, suitable for when you need an overview of all projects. However, it provides no guidance on when to use it versus other tools (e.g., get-status for a specific project), nor when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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