lanhu_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the return values (ID, name) and parameter behavior (parentId=0 root), but omits potential side effects, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the action and result, with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It mentions the return fields (ID, name) and parameter meaning. However, it lacks details on response structure (e.g., array of objects), default behavior when no parentId is provided, and error scenarios. Could be improved but meets basic needs.

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% and includes a description of parentId. The tool description adds a clarifying note that parentId=0 means root directory, which is a useful addition. While schema already does the heavy lifting, this extra context slightly enhances understanding.

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 verb '列出' (list) and resource '项目/文件夹' (projects/folders), and specifies the return fields (ID and name). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action is distinct enough among the 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?

The description explains the meaning of the parentId parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lanhu_set_project for creation). There are no explicit context or exclusion hints.

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