list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'Read-only. No side effects.' It also describes the return value in detail, including the list of fields returned and the auto-detection behavior of `project_root`. This exceeds the baseline for transparency.

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 well-organized with a one-line purpose, a read-only note, usage guidance, Args, and Returns. The return field list is long but informative. It is concise overall, with no filler, though it could slightly trim the return listing since an output schema exists.

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?

The description provides complete context for a simple listing tool: purpose, side-effect profile, usage context, parameter semantics, and return format. It also has an output schema available, but the description still adds value by enumerating the returned fields. No critical gaps.

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 already describes `project_root` with 100% coverage, and the description repeats the exact same text. Thus the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all indexed firmware projects with their statistics,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `get_active_build` and `get_project_info` by focusing on listing all projects rather than details of one.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use at session start to discover available projects.' It also names an alternative for a related task: 'use `get_active_build` for details on the currently active project.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to use `get_project_info` vs. this tool, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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