ak_list_projects

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. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of pagination, sorting, return shape, or whether the result set is limited. The description is not misleading but is too sparse to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and scope without waste. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

For a simple 0-parameter listing tool, the description covers the essential purpose and user scope. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what information is returned or whether pagination applies, leaving some ambiguity about the result shape.

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 the schema has 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. As a baseline for a 0-parameter tool, this is handled appropriately.

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 specific resource ('catalog projects'), and narrows scope to 'the current user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ak_get_project (singular) and ak_list_assignments (different 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?

The description implies the tool is for listing projects belonging to the current user, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives such as ak_get_project for a single project. Usage context is present but exclusions and alternatives are not mentioned.

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