list-projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool uses a GET request (Hits `GET /api/v1/folders/{scope}/list`) and returns an array of Folder items, which implies read-only behavior and gives a clear expectation of the response 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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by implementation details (SDK mirror, endpoint, return type). No filler or redundant information.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it gives the endpoint, the return type, and the parameter default. It sufficiently covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the 'scope' parameter and its default. The description adds a synonym (folders) and mentions mirroring specific SDK functions, but these don't deepen understanding of the parameter itself.

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 states a clear verb (List) and resource (projects/folders) with a scope qualifier, and even names the underlying SDK functions and API endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-chats or list-models, which target different resources.

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 clearly indicates the context (listing folders by scope) and mentions the default scope via schema. It does not explicitly exclude when not to use it, but the name and clear resource targeting make the usage obvious.

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