peaka_list_projects

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds user-scoping ('accessible for the user') and implies the return contains projectIds, but does not address return shape, ordering, or pagination. This is consistent with the calibration example where scope plus annotations warranted a 3.

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, zero filler. The core function is front-loaded and the workflow guidance in the second sentence earns its place by explaining the tool's role in the broader API flow.

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 discovery tool with one optional, fully-documented parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and intended workflow. The only minor gap is the lack of return-shape detail given no output schema exists, but the explicit mention of discovering projectIds mitigates this.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the only parameter, 'search', is fully documented in the schema as a case-insensitive filter on project, workspace, or organization name. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all projects accessible for the user') plus the scope of the operation. It is clearly distinguished from siblings that target different resources (list_catalogs, list_schemas, list_tables), so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting schemas.

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 second sentence gives explicit usage context: 'Use this tool to discover projectIds, then pass the chosen projectId to subsequent tool calls.' This tells the agent when in a workflow to invoke it, though it does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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