list_all_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. It describes the effect (lists projects), the admin privilege requirement, and parameter behavior (verbosity options, default session). It does not disclose error handling or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying clear purpose: first sentence defines the tool's main function; second sentence details parameters. No extraneous words. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description need not explain return values. It covers the main contextual points: access requirements, parameter options, and default session handling. For a simple list tool, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the verbosity parameter values ('minimal', 'standard', 'full') and the default behavior for session_id. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default definitions.

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 visible to the user, with a specific verb ('Lists'), resource ('projects'), and a scope condition ('full list requires admin privileges'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (which may filter) and other list tools.

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 provides context on when to use (for all projects) and a requirement (admin for full list), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives. It implies usage for unfiltered project listing, which is clear enough.

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