工程列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable context that the list reflects projects registered at service startup, implying a snapshot that may not include later changes. This is beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the scope and potential staleness of the data.

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 leads with the verb and resource, and the qualifier is placed naturally. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simplicity—no parameters, read-only, no output schema—the description is nearly complete. It states the purpose and the timing qualifier. While it does not explicitly describe the return format, the verb '列出' strongly implies a list of project identifiers or details, which is sufficient for a tool of this complexity. The lack of an output schema means the description could have clarified the return, but this is a minor gap.

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% (empty schema). According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics because there are none, and it does not attempt to add irrelevant information.

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 verb '列出' (list), the resource '工程' (projects), and a specific qualifier '服务启动时注册的' (registered at service startup), which distinguishes it from other listing tools like cocos_instances or cocos_build_list. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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: use this tool when you need to list projects. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like cocos_instances, and it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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