list_projects_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists projects and returns a list of project information, but doesn't describe what 'project information' includes, whether there's pagination, sorting, filtering, or any constraints on access. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 brief but includes a redundant 'Returns:' section that doesn't add value beyond the first sentence. The two-sentence structure could be condensed to a single sentence without loss of information, making it less than optimally efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'registered project' or what information is returned, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. The lack of output schema means the description should compensate by detailing return values, which it doesn't do.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately doesn't waste space on non-existent parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all registered projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'list_languages' that also list resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple listing tools in the sibling set (list_files, list_languages, list_query_templates_tool), but the description doesn't help the agent choose between them or specify any prerequisites or context for usage.

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