list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and the output fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior or rate limits. The word 'List' implies safety, but the description does not make it explicit.

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 short and well-structured: purpose, return info, authentication note, then argument details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 simple list operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, authentication, and parameter semantics. It does not detail error handling, but that is reasonably left to runtime behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description's Args section compensates by explaining token as 'JWT access token from login' and api_key as 'API key (sk_live_...) from project integration settings.' This adds meaningful format and source context, though it doesn't clarify whether both parameters are required or how they 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 'List the user's Symbols projects', a clear verb and resource. It specifies the return values (project names, keys, IDs) and positions the tool as a prerequisite for choosing where to save/publish, distinguishing it from get_project or create_project.

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?

It provides the intended use context: 'so the user can choose which project to save to or publish.' This clearly indicates when to call the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is specific and actionable.

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