splithub_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does add genuine behavioral context by disclosing a return-value trait — the current project folder is annotated '(current)' — and listing implies a non-destructive read. However, it says nothing about ordering, response format, or what happens when no projects are connected.

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?

A single tight sentence with no padding; the '(current)' marker is the useful payload and it lands early. It loses a point for being a fragment without a leading verb, which slightly weakens front-loading of the action.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description does state what the result set contains, which is the main thing an agent needs. It leaves open the shape of the entries (paths vs. names) and the empty-state behavior, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies a specific resource — folders on this machine linked to SplitHub Cloud projects — which is clearly distinct from siblings like splithub_status, splithub_init, or splithub_whoami. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource ('lists...'), so the action is inferred rather than stated, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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 only implied: the '(current)' marker hints this is for discovering or confirming which project folder you are working in, but the description never says when to call it versus splithub_status or splithub_init. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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