列出 i18n 项目

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the authentication requirement (I18N_API_KEY), which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error behavior or any side effects. Since listing is inherently non-mutating, the lack of an explicit read-only statement is a minor gap, but the description adds some useful context beyond the tool name.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope, then adds the key prerequisite. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema, the description should convey the essential return information. It mentions that the result includes the resource set count, which is a key output feature. It also covers the authentication prerequisite. However, it does not specify the exact structure of each project (e.g., fields like ID, name), nor mention pagination or limits. For a simple list operation with no parameters, this is largely sufficient, but the missing field details could cause minor ambiguity. Overall, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to explain any parameter syntax, and it correctly adds no misleading parameter information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and nothing in the description detracts from this.

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 states a specific action (列出/List), a clear resource (全部项目/all projects), and the scope (当前账号/current account). It also mentions the resource set count, which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_profiles or list_resource_sets. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite of setting the I18N_API_KEY environment variable, which is a critical usage condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the context of siblings and the clear resource (projects vs profiles, resource sets) makes the intended use obvious. No misleading guidance is present.

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