List atlas projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the scope (personal plus org projects) and the can_manage flag indicating permission to trigger runs. No contradictions. Slight deduction for not mentioning any rate limits or pagination (but output schema likely covers that).

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and scope; second adds detail and use case. Perfectly front-loaded and 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?

The description is complete for a simple list tool with zero parameters and an output schema. It covers what the tool returns, who can see what, and a key use case. No gaps.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has no burden to add parameter info. Baseline 4 for zero parameters applies.

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 starts with 'List the atlas doc-generation projects you can see', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It enumerates the fields returned (owner, output space, schedule, source count, latest-run summary, can_manage) and a clear use case (find project_id for atlas_run, read coverage health). This distinguishes it from siblings like atlas_run.

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 explicitly says 'Start here to find a project_id for atlas_run, or to read coverage health at a glance', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools.

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