lanhu_list_designs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention authentication requirements, or describe any potential side effects or return format. The output schema covers returns, but behavioral transparency beyond that is lacking.

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 verb and resource. Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately minimal for a simple tool.

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 is simple with one parameter fully described in the schema, and an output schema exists (not shown but indicated). The description adequately conveys what the tool does. It could mention that it returns a list of design pages, but that is implied and likely covered by the output schema. Minor gaps like authentication or edge cases are not critical for this low-complexity 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?

The schema description covers the single parameter 'url' with a clear explanation ('Lanhu project URL containing pid/project_id'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (list), the resource (design pages), and the context (a Lanhu project). It is easily distinguishable from siblings like lanhu_prepare_design or lanhu_inspect_design, which are about other operations.

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 usage context is implied: this tool lists design pages, while siblings handle other actions. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple listing tool, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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