ListProjects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets a list' without explaining whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, how results are paginated (though parameters suggest pagination), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('获取工作空间详情列表') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail for a tool with 10 parameters. While structurally sound, it fails to provide adequate context.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or usage context. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description fails to provide the broader context needed for an AI agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify relationships between parameters like Names and Ids). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 '获取工作空间详情列表' (Get workspace details list) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ListProjects' in Chinese. It specifies the resource ('workspace details') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'get' and doesn't distinguish this tool from other list operations in the sibling tools (e.g., ListDataSources, ListFunctions, ListWorkflows). The purpose is vague about what kind of listing this performs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also list resources (e.g., ListDataSources, ListFunctions), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be selected. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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