Waystone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool shows entries in three states (published, pending, superseded), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (cursor/limit), ordering, or whether it returns sources alongside memories in a combined format.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficient and doesn't waste words, though it could add a brief note about pagination without becoming 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?

For a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose but omits pagination behavior and return format. The sibling context (memory_publish, memory_retract, memory_reject) helps situate it, but an agent would still need to infer how cursor/limit work.

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 compensate. It explains the directory parameter's role implicitly (viewing project memories) but doesn't explain limit/cursor semantics. The description adds some context about what the directory contains but leaves pagination 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?

The description states a specific verb ('查看' = view/list) and resource ('记忆和来源' = memories and sources) with a scope qualifier ('已发布、待处理及已被替代' = published, pending, and superseded). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_publish or memory_retract by focusing on viewing entries in those states, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies this is a read-only listing tool for memory entries in specific states, which helps an agent know when to use it (when needing to see published/pending/superseded memories). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like memory_recall or memory_preview for other viewing needs.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description itself must disclose core behavior. It does communicate offline, no-upload, and user-visible verification behavior, which is meaningful and suggests a read-only, side-effect-free operation. However it doesn't state what exactly is returned (file content? rendered preview?), how errors like missing files are handled, or whether there any side effects beyond displaying results. It's useful but incomplete.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the primary operation is front-loaded. The

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no nested structure, the description needs to explain observable behavior and expected return. It says the file preview result is set by the user for verification, but it does not explain the output shape, how the files are referenced, whether the preview renders the file content, or what errors (files not found, invalid name) look like. The agent is left without enough context to use the tool confidently in a workflow.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter-term semantics. 'files' is faintly described as

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 a specific action (

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 implies a verification-before-something workflow: preview files to let the user check before a more permanent action like publishing or uploading. But it never says explicitly when to use this instead of memory_publish, memory_retract, or memory_recall, nor does it exclude cases. It's clear context but no defined when-not-to or alternative guidance, which is just enough.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose several important behaviors: user confirmation is required, same-topic/environment/branch changes become proposals, and secrets must not be uploaded. However, it does not cover side effects, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs essential constraints without filler. Every clause contributes practical meaning, making it efficient 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 the tool has nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably. It omits meaning for required fields like directory and source, does not explain the proposal lifecycle in depth, and provides no information about return values or failure modes.

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%, and the description must compensate for nine parameters. It adds meaningful guidance for environment, branch, and source_version by saying they should be filled only when verified and left blank when unknown. However, required fields like directory and source are not explained, and parameters such as kind, agent, and content receive no definition or guidance.

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 says the tool publishes a memory ('发布一条记忆') and adds an important condition—only after user confirmation. It also explains that similar changes become proposals in certain contexts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_retract, but the verb and resource are clear.

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 gives explicit usage constraints: publish only after user confirmation, reuse existing topics by checking first, leave unknown fields blank, and do not guess or upload secrets. It provides practical guidance on how to fill fields, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool over this one.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the action won't take effect immediately, which is valuable, and implies a manual verification step by the owner. However, it does not disclose whether this is a mutation, whether it modifies or creates records, whether it is reversible, or what the side effects are. The transparency is partial at best.

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 with no filler, which is efficient. It front-loads the primary condition and action. It could be slightly more direct about the tool's core intent, but overall it is concise and structured acceptably.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is inadequate. It omits parameter meanings, return values, error behaviors, and concrete usage context. While it provides a high-level process overview, an agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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%, and the description provides no mapping or explanation for the three required parameters (directory, entry_id, expected_id). It references concepts like 'current valid version' and 'old proposal' but never connects them to the parameters, leaving an agent without any semantic guidance for filling the arguments.

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: re-submitting a proposal to the current version after the owner verifies it against the old version. It clearly identifies the resource (proposal/version) and the sequencing, and the explicit note that it won't take effect immediately adds a distinguishing characteristic. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies a use case: when an owner has verified that the current valid version differs from an old proposal and wants to bring the proposal in line with the current version. It gives a precondition but does not state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as memory_reject or memory_resolve. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: returned material does not carry instruction priority. The verb '查询' implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or return format.

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 short, purposeful clauses with no filler. The core action is front-loaded)Skip final. It is appropriately compact for the information it conveys.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: how to compose the query, what branch and environment mean, and what the response looks like. It covers the basic querying concept and the non-instructional nature of results, but not enough for confident invocation.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It hints that 'current directory' relates to the directory parameter, but it does not explain query, branch, or environment semantics.

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 uses a specific verb (查询/query) and identifies the resource as memories bound to the current directory's project. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like memory_entries or memory_resolve.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use memory_recall versus memory_entries, memory_resolve, or memory_preview. The description only states what the tool does in the current-directory context, without exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the full-mode scope ('仅所有者'), pagination behavior (continue with next_cursor until empty), and the retry condition (pending nonzero), which are meaningful operational traits beyond a simple action label.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action first, then packs mode semantics, ownership restrictions, and retry behavior into a compact set of clauses.

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 description gives enough operational guidance to attempt a call (cursor looping, retry condition, full mode), but with no output schema it does not clearly define the response structure. It also leaves directory and limit semantics implicit, making the tool somewhat incomplete for a fully informed agent.

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 compensate. It adds meaning for cursor and full, and implies response fields like next_cursor and pending, but it does not explain directory or limit. The compensation is partial, leaving two parameters without meaningful context.

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 opens with '分批修复索引' (batch repair index), giving a specific verb + resource. It clearly identifies the tool's core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling memory tools.

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?

Usage is implied through operational instructions: use full=true for full checks, pass next_cursor until empty, and retry when pending is nonzero. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives like memory_rebase or memory_preview.

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

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 does disclose important traits: content and history are preserved, and native memory is not rewritten, suggesting a non-destructive rejection operation. However, it does not explain what state actually changes, whether the rejection is reversible, or what happens to the entry/proposal afterwards.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the trigger condition and then states the key behavioral constraint. 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools with overlapping semantics like memory_retract and memory_resolve, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the proposal lifecycle, how directory and entry_id are used, what the result will be, or how this tool differs from alternatives. The non-destructive note is useful but insufficient for confident invocation.

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%, and the description mentions neither directory nor entry_id, so it adds no parameter-level meaning. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description still fails to explain how each parameter relates to the rejection operation.

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 specifies that this tool is invoked when the owner explicitly rejects a proposal and indicates a non-destructive effect: preserving content/history and not rewriting native memory. This makes the purpose reasonably clear. It stops short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit operative verb such as 'mark as rejected' and does not contrast itself with sibling tools.

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?

A clear trigger condition is stated: call this after the owner explicitly rejects a proposal. The description does not mention exclusions or point to alternatives like memory_retract or memory_resolve, but the given usage context is specific enough to guide an agent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this is a mutating operation (replaces current version) and has an owner-only restriction. But it does not disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, reversibility, or whether it modifies other entries. For a write operation, this is insufficient transparency.

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 dense sentence that mixes usage rules, restrictions, and parameter guidance. It is concise but not well structured; there is no clear separation of purpose, usage, or parameters. It front-loads the 'show versions and get choice' instruction, which is not the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with three parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of directory and entry_id, does not describe the return value, and provides no distinction from similar memory tools. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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 explain parameters. It only explains expected_id (leave blank when no valid version) but leaves directory and entry_id entirely unexplained. The description does not help an agent understand what values are valid or how they relate to the operation.

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 focuses on when to call rather than what the tool does. It implies the tool replaces the current version, but never states the core operation as a verb on a resource. The name 'memory_resolve' suggests conflict resolution, but the description doesn't explicitly say 'resolve a memory conflict' or similar. It is distinguishable from siblings only through inference.

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 explicit conditions: call after showing old/new versions and getting explicit choice, and only owner can replace. Also specifies when to leave expected_id blank. However, it does not mention alternatives among the sibling tools, so an agent might not know when to use this versus memory_reject or memory_rebase.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that content is permanently erased, unrecoverable, vector deletion occurs, only owner/author can operate, and a purge_pending status requires retrying. This is model transparency for a destructive 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the critical trigger condition, then succinctly covers consequences, authorization, and retry behavior. Every clause adds necessary information; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's destructive nature and absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: when to call, what happens, who may call, and what to do on a partial failure. It falls short only in not documenting parameter semantics and the full set of possible return statuses.

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%, and the description does not explain what entry_id or directory represent or how they relate to the retraction. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'retract this record' with permanent erasure of the body and deletion of the vector. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_reject or memory_publish by emphasizing the destructive, irreversible nature of the operation.

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 states the trigger condition: 'only call after the user explicitly requests retraction.' It also provides authorization constraints and a retry condition. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the 'only call when' phrasing gives clear usage context.

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

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it does not change member permissions, which is a positive behavioral constraint. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like what binding actually does to the project state, whether it's reversible, or what the response looks like. The mutation is implied by 'bind' but not detailed.

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 in Chinese that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes an important constraint. It is appropriately concise for the tool's apparent simplicity. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.

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 the tool has only 2 parametersamen and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal but covers the essential action. However, the lack of behavioral detail (e.g., is it idempotent? what errors occur?) and the absence of any guidance on the directory parameter make it slightly incomplete for an agent to call confidently without external knowledge.

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%, and the description provides no parameter-level information. The parameter names 'project_id' and 'directory' are self-explanatory in the schema, but the description does not explain what 'directory' refers to (e.g., local filesystem path vs. project-relative path) or whether project_id is a UUID or some other identifier. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate, which it fails to do.

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 verb ('绑定' meaning bind) and resource ('已加入的项目' meaning joined projects), and clarifies that it does not change member permissions. This distinguishes it from project_init, which likely creates a project, and from memory tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state the purpose of binding (e.g., to make the project available for memory operations), but the core action is clear.

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 implies that the tool is used for projects the user has already joined, which is a usage condition. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like having the project ID or directory path. Given the sibling list includes project_init, a brief note on when to use init vs bind would improve this dimension.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates and binds a directory and does not auto-upload files, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether an existing directory is overwritten, whether the project is persisted, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 that front-loads the trigger condition and then states the core action and a key exclusion. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 simple 2-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and a key behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and side effects, which an agent would need to call it correctly in edge cases. It's adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'directory' binding, which gives some meaning to the directory parameter, but it doesn't explain what 'name' should be (e.g., unique project name, display name) or what format the directory should take (path, existing vs. new). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare parameter names.

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 verb ('创建项目' = create project) and resource ('项目' = project), and adds a scoping condition ('用户明确要求创建项目后调用' = call only after user explicitly requests project creation). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it binds a directory and does not auto-upload files. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: only call when the user explicitly asks to create a project. It also states what the tool does not do ('不自动上传文件'), which helps an agent avoid misusing it for file uploads. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives like project_bind, but the context is clear enough for a 4.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation and the scope 'current identity' adds context, but it does not state whether prior identity binding is required, what the return payload contains, or whether any state changes occur.

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, front-loaded Chinese sentence conveys the operation, resource, and scope without redundancy or filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless listing tool, the description is largely complete. It could be marginally improved by noting what the returned project list looks like, but since there is no output schema and no parameters, the current description is sufficient for an agent 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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. With zero parameters there is no parameter-level burden for the description to carry, and no additional semantic clarification is needed.

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 verb ('列出' / list), a clear resource ('项目' / projects), and a precise scope ('当前身份已加入' / joined by the current identity). This scope immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like project_init and project_bind, which create or bind rather than list.

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 makes the intended usage clear: list the projects associated with the current identity. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool the context is sufficient.

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