List Overleaf projects

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true / openWorldHint=false annotations, it discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: it reads local configuration only, 'answers without contacting Overleaf and proves nothing about access.' That caveat prevents the agent from misreading a successful listing as evidence of connectivity or permissions, and the return format is described too.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage triggers, then the local-only caveat and return format. Four sentences, each carrying distinct information with no restatement of the name or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining the return format ('one line per registered name, marked (default)'). Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add cross-tool context by noting the `project` argument on other tools accepts an Overleaf address for unlisted projects, but that is not a parameter of this tool itself.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the Overleaf projects this server is configured to reach, marking which one is the default.' It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like project_summary and project_status, which operate on a single project rather than enumerating registered ones.

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?

Explicit triggers are given: 'when a request is ambiguous about which paper it means, or when another tool reports an unknown project.' It also covers the negative case — a project absent from the list is still reachable by passing its Overleaf address as `project` — so the agent knows the list is not exhaustive.

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