List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of context about project composition (seed documents, ontology definitions) but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond listing, such as pagination, ordering, or response format.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all MiroFish projects'), and no wasted words. The second sentence adds useful domain context without redundancy.

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?

As a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does. It explains the project concept, which is useful for an agent deciding whether to use this tool. It could mention that it returns a list, but that is strongly implied by the verb 'list'.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single 'limit' parameter, including type, default, and bounds. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters because the schema already documents them fully; baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'List all MiroFish projects.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mirofish_get_project, which likely fetches a single project. The additional context about projects containing seed documents and ontology definitions further clarifies the resource being listed.

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 clearly implies use when the agent needs to enumerate all projects, contrasting with get_project for a single project. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the direct 'use this instead of X' guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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