List projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only; writes nothing' is non-contradictory repetition. It adds useful behavioral context by clarifying the tool only inspects the central store and does not incorporate working-directory state, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and target, the second reinforces safety and when to use it, and the third scopes out the main alternative context. No filler or redundancy.

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, parameterless list tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the source of data, the read-only safety profile, the conditions for invocation, and the context in which it should be avoided. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the behavior 'List the named projects' sufficiently implies the return 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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead explains what the tool operates on, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource (named projects in the central store), and the exact location (~/.continuity/projects). It also distinguishes this tool from working-directory-based state, making its purpose unmistakable even among siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: when the user names an unseen project or when checking whether central mode holds any state. It also states when it is usually irrelevant (inside a repo with .continuity/), giving clear guidance on when not to use it.

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