get_project_folder_list

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination handling, authentication needs, or return format. For a list tool, this lack of transparency forces the agent to guess behavior.

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 a single concise sentence in Chinese, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded to resolve the naming ambiguity. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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?

Given the complexity of 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned list contains (folders or files), pagination defaults, or sorting. The agent lacks sufficient context to fully understand the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. However, the description does not clarify the role of 'status' as file status versus folder status.

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 '获取项目文件夹列表' translates to 'Get project folder list', which states a verb and resource. However, the input parameters (status, keyword) are file-related, creating ambiguity about whether the tool lists folders or files. This lack of differentiation from potential siblings like 'file_list' reduces clarity.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_project_list' or 'file_list'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, filters, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without context.

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