list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context by pinning results to the locally configured roots, but says nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or failure modes when no roots are configured.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope before the clarifying negation. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema handling return values, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs. The only residual gap is the ambiguous domain term 'uSimmics' and the absence of any hint about what happens when no roots are configured.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The scope phrase 'configured local roots' usefully explains that filtering is environmental rather than parameterized.

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 (uSimmics projects) plus a scope qualifier ('in the configured local roots'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not name the sibling create_project explicitly, instead phrasing the distinction negatively as 'without creating projects.'

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 clause 'without creating projects' implies the read-only counterpart to create_project, but the description never explicitly says 'use create_project to make one' or states any other when/when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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