sls_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only listing operation (implied by '列出'), supports fuzzy search ('模糊搜索'), has a default limit of 10 with range 1-100, and requires region_id. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 structured with clear sections (功能概述, 使用场景, etc.), but it's verbose with redundant information. For example, the '返回数据结构' section repeats what's in the Returns docstring, and the '查询示例' adds little operational value. Some sentences don't earn their place, making it less concise than ideal.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what data it returns. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a cloud service tool with no structured metadata.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that project_name_query supports fuzzy search and that region_id is required, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples beyond 'xx-xxx' or practical usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('阿里云日志服务中的所有项目' - all projects in Alibaba Cloud Log Service). It distinguishes from siblings like sls_list_logstores (which lists logstores within projects) by focusing on projects rather than logstores, making the scope unambiguous.

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 '使用场景' section explicitly provides three scenarios for when to use this tool: checking if a specific project exists, getting all SLS projects in a region, and searching by partial project name. It also mentions '如果不提供项目名称，则返回该区域的所有项目' (if no project name is provided, returns all projects in the region), clarifying the default behavior.

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