chatgpt_list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals that the tool is read-only and has no side effects on projects, which is the most important behavioral trait. It does not discuss edge cases like empty results or authentication, but those are minor for a simple listing operation.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and result, then clearly states the read-only constraint. Every clause adds value and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is listed, what fields are returned, and that no modifications occur. The read-only disclaimer compensates for the absence of annotations.

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 input schema has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description's mention of output fields (project names and modification times) is sufficient when there are no parameters to explain.

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 (列出), resource (ChatGPT Projects), and exact returned fields: project names and modification times. It also clearly distinguishes itself from mutation tools by asserting it only reads the Projects page and does not create or modify projects.

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?

Provides a clear read-only boundary: '只读取 Projects 页面，不创建或修改项目' tells the agent this is for listing, not creating or modifying. It does not explicitly name alternatives like chatgpt_create_project or chatgpt_select_project, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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