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 and excels. It discloses that the operation is read-only, local, never touches a provider or network, uses the cache file's mtime for updated_at, and that GitHub-only edits show stale stamps until sync. It also states sort order by `project`.

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 earns its place: scope, distinguishing feature, safety, staleness caveat, and ordering. It is information-dense without being verbose.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what data is returned, where it comes from, semantics of timestamps, sort order, and behavior guarantees (no network, no mutation), fully enabling safe and correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description adds meaning by explaining that taking no project is intentional and signals server-level scope. This helps an agent understand why no parameters are needed.

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 every cached project with task counts and last-changed time. It explicitly differentiates itself by noting it is the ONE tool that takes no `project` parameter and answers about the server itself, distinguishing it from all sibling 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?

It explains when to use the tool: to enumerate what projects exist locally, e.g., for a console to list without requiring a human to type paths. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives one might choose instead, but the server-level vs project-level distinction makes usage clear.

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