list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: role-based visibility, the meaning of an empty list, and the display-order-then-created order. It also states the return fields (id, name, metadata), which helps the agent know what to expect before calling.

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?

Every sentence carries intent: the START HERE hook, access scope, empty-list interpretation, ordering caveat, return fields, and pointer to get_project. It is dense but not wasteful, and the most actionable guidance is front-loaded.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description covers purpose, access behavior, ordering, return shape, and the correct next-step tool. There is no missing information that would prevent the agent from invoking it correctly or interpreting its results properly.

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 there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. The description instead clarifies the output fields and access semantics, which is useful given that no granular schema or output schema exists.

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 states a specific action ('List'), the resource ('projects'), and scopes it to what the current key can reach. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_project, which provides detailed single-project information, and its START HERE framing establishes it as the entry point for obtaining project UUIDs.

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 tells the agent to start here because almost every other tool needs a project UUID. It also gives concrete interpretation guidance: an empty list means no access rather than no projects, and the ordering should not be over-interpreted. It routes to get_project for detail and for the actual status/priority vocabularies before setting status.

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