yapi_list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions the token-based authentication and that no parameters are required, indicating a read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or error cases, which would make it fully 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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the action, scope, and field list. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no redundant information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it lists the returned fields and the authentication context. It could be improved by mentioning the response format (e.g., array of objects), but it is largely complete for a simple list tool.

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 (0 params, 100% schema coverage). The description explicitly confirms 'no parameters,' which aligns with the schema. For zero-parameter tools, the baseline is 4, and the description adds the confirmation value.

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 YApi project information for the current token, specifying the fields returned (ID, name, description). This action is distinct from sibling tools like yapi_get_api_details or yapi_save_api, which handle specific APIs or searches.

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 usage when a project list is needed but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusion criteria or recommended contexts are provided, relying on the user to infer from tool names.

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