list_projects

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

The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the phrase 'all projects and their services' clarifies the scope. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects, leaving the description to carry the behavioral burden with limited information.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning: 'List' specifies the operation, 'all projects' defines scope, and 'their services' clarifies the output content. There is no wasted or redundant text.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, and the description gives the core purpose. Still, it does not specify the shape of the returned data, whether services are nested under each project, or any behavioral limits. For an agent needing to act on the response, this is adequate but leaves some 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter semantics are essentially moot. The description adds no param-level detail, but none is needed because there is nothing to configure; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('projects') while adding scope ('all') and content ('their services'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, destroy_project, and inspect_project, which perform different actions on the same resource.

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?

For a simple list operation, the intended use is reasonably implied: use this tool when you need an overview of all projects and their services. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as inspect_project for details of a single project.

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