list_adapters

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond being a read-only listing operation. There is no information about performance, caching, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a zero-parametric tool, the absence of this context is acceptable but does not add value beyond the obvious.

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 sentence, which is concise and to the point. However, it is in Chinese, which may reduce clarity for an English-dominant agent. The sentence can be restructured to be more front-loaded with an English translation, but it is not verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining what is returned. It states it lists 'available ProjectAdapter + auto detection results', which gives a general idea but lacks specifics on format or structure. For a simple list tool with no parameters, this is minimally adequate, but more detail (e.g., example items or schema) would improve completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description is not required to add parameter information, and it does not. With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description meets that baseline adequately.

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 tool lists 'available ProjectAdapter + auto detection results', specifying the resource being listed. While the resource name is somewhat technical and in Chinese, it differentiates from sibling list tools which list different entities (e.g., consultants, defaults). A clearer English description or example of what 'ProjectAdapter' represents would improve specificity, but the purpose is effectively communicated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling list tools (e.g., list_consultants, list_skills). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. An agent would have no basis to choose this over other list_* tools based solely on the description.

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