projectbrain_list_projects

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic listing functionality. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but for a simple list operation with no parameters, the minimal behavioral info is adequate. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, but it is implied.

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 a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. Every word 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does (list imported projects). However, it does not mention the return format or any limitations, which would be helpful but not critical for such a simple 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none to explain. Baseline 4 for zero 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 tool lists projects that have been imported into the local ProjectBrain store, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'projects'. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like projectbrain_import_project and projectbrain_list_experience_claims by focusing on projects. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as projectbrain_list_experience_claims. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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