list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does establish that this is a read-only discovery operation and that results include sheets and PCB files, but it is silent on recursion behavior, permissions, and whether the search is bounded or slow.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope appear immediately. The compressed grammar ('Find ... with their sheets and PCB files') is slightly awkward but costs no reading effort.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description correctly signals what is returned. Still, for a two-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, the undocumented recursion depth leaves a real gap an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely conveys 'root' as 'a directory' and says nothing about 'max_depth' — a non-obvious recursion control with a default of 6 — leaving a behaviorally significant parameter undocumented in both places.

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?

Names a concrete verb ('Find') and a concrete resource ('Altium projects (.PrjPcb)') with a clear scope ('under a directory'), plus the payload returned (sheets and PCB files). It implicitly separates itself from project_info (detail lookup) but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'under a directory' implies this is a discovery/enumeration step before per-project tools, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over project_info or what to do if no projects exist, so usage is only implied.

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