list_projects

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

The description states 'Read-only. No side effects.' Since no annotations are provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits. It also details the return value format (list of dicts with fields).

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-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. No redundant 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?

Complete description covering purpose, usage, parameter, return format, and side effects. No gaps given the tool's simplicity and existence of output schema details.

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 only parameter 'project_root' is explained: 'Auto-detected if omitted. Pass to distinguish multiple indexed projects.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's description. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3, but the added disambiguation info justifies a 4.

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 starts with 'List all indexed firmware projects with their statistics,' which clearly states the verb (list) and resource (indexed firmware projects). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_active_build' by specifying discovery at session start.

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 'Use at session start to discover available projects; use get_active_build for details on the currently active project.' This gives clear when-to-use and an alternative tool, plus states 'Read-only. No side effects.'

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