List projects

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only'. Beyond that, it adds valuable context: the tool returns a routing table of every project, including fields, and is 'cheapest' in terms of cost. No behavioral contradictions.

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 two sentences, densely packed with information. It front-loads the core purpose ('routing table'), immediately lists what is returned, and adds usage guidance. Every word contributes value with no redundancy or bloat.

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 has no output schema, so the description must explain return values—it does, listing status, summary, trigger words, and capsule path. It also covers read-only nature, performance ('cheapest'), and usage context relative to sibling tools. For a simple list tool with no parameters, this is fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds no new parameter information, but none is needed. It does clarify the scope ('every project'), which gives context about what the lack of parameters means.

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 tool lists all projects with specific fields (status, summary, trigger words, capsule path). The verb 'list' is specific and the resource is unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by framing it as a routing table and the cheapest way to inspect available projects before using recall or search.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: before calling recall or search, as it's the cheapest read-only way to see what exists. It names alternatives (recall, search) and clarifies the read-only nature, providing clear context for selection.

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