list_code_projects

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned payload (rollup summary, session count, last-active time), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scoping restrictions, ordering, or pagination for a tool that could return many projects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource, its scope, and the payload in one pass. Every clause ('coding-agent projects', 'repos worked on via Claude Code') earns its place by disambiguating what a project is.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the results contain, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide to call it. Given zero parameters and a simple read listing, little else is required; only result ordering/volume behavior is left unstated.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no spurious parameter guidance.

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 (List) and resource (the user's coding-agent projects), with a parenthetical scoping clarification ('repos worked on via Claude Code etc.'). This clearly separates it from get_code_session, which retrieves one session rather than a project rollup, though no sibling is named.

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 only implied — an agent can infer this is the entry point for project discovery versus get_code_session for drilling into a session. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or named alternative.

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