List projects

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds genuine context beyond that — results are filtered by token scope, and the agentCreated flag marks exactly the projects trash_project accepts. It does not mention ordering, result size, or what an empty result means, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the calling condition, then the token-scope implication. The nested parenthetical about agentCreated and trash_project is information-dense but makes the second sentence slightly run-on.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so by listing the fields returned. Nothing critical is missing for a zero-argument list tool, though ordering or result-size behavior is left unstated.

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 the schema baseline is already 4 and the description does not need to explain inputs. It still adds cross-tool value by noting that a project-scoped token makes the project argument optional everywhere, which informs how the agent calls sibling tools.

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 and resource ('List the LaTeX projects') plus the exact scope ('this token can reach') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, branches, rootFile, engine, agentCreated). Naming create_project and trash_project in passing makes it distinguishable from those siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call it when you do not know the project id', which is a clear triggering condition, and adds that a project-scoped token makes the project argument optional elsewhere. It stops short of naming a when-not or a specific alternative tool, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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