列出项目与应用

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the 'current team' scope and the API-workaround rationale, but it does not disclose behaviors like pagination, data volume, or authentication failure handling. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list, but not deeply transparent.

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 two compact sentences: the primary behavior is front-loaded, and the parenthetical implementation note is short and relevant. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description covers scope, returned data, and the implementation rationale. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation and the fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 single optional projectId parameter is fully described in the schema ('only query a certain project; list all if not passed'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('list all AGC projects and apps under each project') and enumerates the returned fields (appId, name, package name, device type). It also identifies the implementation source, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from more specific AGC tools like agc_get_app_info.

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 clear context: this is the general listing tool for projects and apps, and it explains why it exists (the official API is OAuth-only, so it uses the project management API instead). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the listing intention is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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