List Dialogue Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond this by stating the scope ('shared workspace') and the return shape (array of project summaries with specific fields). This provides useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary function, then adds return summary and usage guidance, followed by a clear Args section and Returns description. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff.

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 good annotations and one optional parameter, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the return format (array of summaries), and the usage context. No output schema exists, so the description adequately covers return values. No critical gaps are apparent.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage. The description repeats the parameter's name, options, and default exactly as in the schema, adding no extra semantic value (e.g., usage examples, format implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all dialogue projects in the shared workspace.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like dialogue_get_project (single project) and dialogue_list_threads (threads) by focusing on listing projects, and it notes the return summary. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 clear context: 'Use this to discover existing conversational contexts before creating new ones.' This tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., use dialogue_get_project for a specific project ID), so it stops short of a 5.

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