List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral default (UI projects silently excluded unless opted in) that the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the default-scope constraint front-loaded before the opt-in escape hatch. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values and pagination cursor need not be described. The description covers the one non-obvious behavior (default filtering). Minor omission: no note on result ordering or team-vs-owner scope, though selfOnly is in the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, cursor, selfOnly, includeUiProjects) are already documented in the schema. The description only elaborates on includeUiProjects, adding nothing beyond the schema's own wording. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List projects') and immediately clarifies scope: API-created projects only by default. That scope note distinguishes it from a naive reading, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_project or list_project_remix_actions.

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?

Gives actionable conditional guidance: default returns API-created projects, and passing includeUiProjects widens to dashboard projects. It lacks an explicit 'use get_project for a single project' exclusion, but the condition that changes behavior is spelled out.

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