项目列表

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful behavior beyond it by disclosing exactly what each mode returns (phase status and spend totals vs full phases/deliverables/transactions). Given there is no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and then the mode difference; no filler or restated title text.

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?

Covers the critical return-mode distinction that the absent output schema leaves undocumented, which is the main gap it needed to fill. It still leaves the status filter, result scope (all projects vs. user-scoped), and pagination unspecified for a tool an agent may call with no arguments.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains detail=true well (full phases/deliverables/transactions), but the required status parameter is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 and resource (列出项目) and immediately clarifies the two return modes, so the agent knows what it gets back. It does not distinguish itself from sibling project.get, which also retrieves project data, so the agent must infer the list-vs-single distinction.

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 default-vs-detail=true split gives implied usage guidance for choosing verbosity. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-project.get, no note on whether results are paginated or filtered by default, and no guidance about the status parameter.

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