qwen_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description adds useful context by naming the two project categories. It does not disclose failure modes or edge cases, but for a simple no-argument list tool this is acceptable.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and the exact resource scope. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 no-parameter list operation with an output schema, the description is fully adequate. It tells the agent exactly what the tool lists, and invocation requires no further context. The missing details are minor and unlikely to affect correct selection or invocation.

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 and the schema is fully covered, so the baseline is 4. The description cannot add parameter meaning where none exists, and no additional explanation is needed.

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?

States a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('projects') and further narrows scope to 'internal projects and external .txt-linked projects.' This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from file-related siblings like qwen_list_files.

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 implies usage whenever a list of projects is needed, and the zero-parameter signature makes invocation self-evident. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as qwen_status or qwen_resolve_project.

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