list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only. No side effects.' This clearly communicates the tool's behavior and safety profile, adding value beyond the input schema.

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 with three sentences: first states the safe read nature, second lists the output fields, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool has a simple optional parameter, an output schema (not shown but present), and the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage clearly, the description is complete for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides a description for the single parameter 'project_root' with 100% coverage. The description adds context by explaining its auto-detection behavior and purpose ('Auto-detected if omitted. Pass to distinguish multiple indexed projects.'), which enhances the schema meaning.

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 explicitly states 'Lists all firmware projects that have been indexed with fw-context' and specifies the output fields (database path, symbol count, last re-index time). It starts with 'Read-only. No side effects.' which clearly defines the verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'get_active_build' as an alternative for current project details.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Use at session start to discover available projects; use get_active_build for details on the current project.' This clearly tells when to use this tool and when to use a sibling tool, helping the AI agent decide effectively.

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