List Projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's second sentence ('returns verifiable structured results; write and path restrictions depend on service capability') is generic boilerplate that discloses nothing new about behavior, ordering, or result limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, which is good. However, the second sentence is filler boilerplate that occupies half the description without adding information, and the bilingual restatement of the name is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a list tool in a 200-tool family the description supplies neither scope differentiation nor parameter behavior, leaving the agent unable to confidently choose it over the other list_* tools.

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 single parameter max_items has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions max_items, its default of 100, or what happens when it is exceeded (truncation? error?). Sibling tools in this family likely share the pattern, but the agent gets no help here.

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 verb and resource ('list projects'), but the Chinese/English duplication ('列出list projects') only restates the name and title. With ~200 sibling tools including list_maps, list_layouts, list_layers and list_tables, there is no differentiation of what makes 'projects' distinct or what a project record contains.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus arcgis_pro_project_summary, arcgis_pro_describe, or the other list_* siblings. No mention of prerequisites (e.g. an open project) or exclusions.

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