list-projects

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real context: the exact endpoint (GET implies a read-only lookup), the SDK method it mirrors, and the paginated {folders, pagination} envelope rather than a bare array. It stops short of stating pagination controls, result limits, or auth requirements.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: identity, SDK equivalence, endpoint, and return shape. The most important fact (what it returns) is stated up front with no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing piece — the response envelope shape and pagination presence — plus the underlying endpoint. Only the absence of any pagination/limit behavior detail keeps it from being 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the single 'scope' parameter is fully documented with its enum and default. The description adds nothing about scope semantics beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List projects") and resolves the ambiguous naming by equating projects with folders, which is the main disambiguation an agent needs. It does not, however, distinguish this from the related create-project/update-project/reorder-project siblings beyond the implicit 'list' verb.

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 name and the scope parameter — clearly the tool to enumerate projects before adding/removing chats. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to an alternative (e.g., when to prefer list-generated-files or list-uploaded-files for other file views).

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