list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety signal; 'List' implies a read-only query, and the added inclusion details (_global, labels, size summaries) go beyond the bare verb. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but those are not strongly implied for a zero-parameter listing tool, and the output schema can define the return shape.

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 front-loaded sentence states the action and notable output content with no filler. Every word earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a simple zero-parameter listing operation, so the description is close to sufficient. The output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the inclusion note helps set expectations. A small gap is the lack of explicit guidance about how this list relates to get_project or project_status, but that is not critical for a low-complexity 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about individual arguments. Schema coverage is 100% because the schema is empty; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('projects'), then adds meaningful scope with '_global, labels, and composed-protocol size summaries'. This clearly separates it from singular/write siblings such as get_project or update_project.

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 intended usage is implied by the 'List' verb and the zero-parameter schema, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternative named, and no exclusion conditions. An agent must infer that this is the overview/read-all command rather than a more specific project query.

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