List projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the output fields are disclosed. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether the list includes archived projects, leaving some behavioral aspects unstated.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by a brief clarification about tasks. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 parameterless list operation, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and adds relevant context about where tasks live. It does not describe a return envelope or any complications, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description correctly focuses on the output rather than parameter details. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('the user's projects'), and specifies the output fields (id, name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dwt_create_project and dwt_list_tasks by naming a distinct resource and operation.

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 sentence 'Tasks live in projects or unassigned' provides contextual hint that listing projects is relevant for finding tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dwt_list_tasks. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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