List your projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds one useful behavioral fact the annotations don't: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about pagination defaults, total counts, or how many projects a typical user has.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the trigger condition before the mechanics, with no filler. The colon-joined clause is slightly dense but still readable.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, ordering and the id-chaining use case. The main residual gap is not describing what identifying fields a project record carries beyond the hinted id.

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%, with limit and offset fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter guidance such as how to page through a large project list.

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 ('lists the user's projects') and clarifies what a project is in this domain ('the websites they buy for'). It implicitly separates itself from growwer_get_project by being the list form, though it never names that sibling.

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 a concrete usage trigger: 'when you need the user's projects... for example to pick the project id the catalogue and order tools take.' This tells the agent both the situation and the downstream consumer. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. preferring get_project when an id is already known).

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