list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default exclusion of done and dropped projects, how to override it, the cap imposed by limit, and the exact fields returned on each project. It could add ordering or pagination details, but the disclosed behavior is substantive and clear.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then covers default behavior, filter semantics, and returned fields. Every sentence contributes necessary 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description properly explains returned project fields. It also covers defaults, filters, and limits, which is sufficient for a list operation with only two optional parameters. The agent can select and invoke the tool without missing critical information.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that filter.status overrides the default exclusion, folderId restricts to that folder's subtree, and results are capped at limit. This gives the agent practical understanding of how the parameters interact.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List projects in OmniFocus.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_project, list_tasks, and list_folders by naming the project resource and describing default filtering behavior. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: call this to list projects, optionally restricted by status, folderId, or flagged, and override the default done/dropped exclusion via filter.status. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for single-project retrieval or other resource listings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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