create_project

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it is a write operation ('寫入操作') and is protected by rate limits ('受頻率限制保護'), which adds transparency beyond what the schema provides. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as overlapping project names, ownership, or response details.

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 extremely concise at one line, with no wasted words. It front-loades the core purpose and includes key behavioral notes. It could be considered slightly under-specified for a creation tool, but it earns a 4 for being efficient and to the point.

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 are only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic fact that this is a write operation with rate limits. However, it lacks information about what happens after creation, whether duplicate names are allowed, and how the response looks. It is adequate for a simple project creation tool but could provide more 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not list or explain any parameters; it relies entirely on the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for the 'name' and 'type' fields.

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 '建立新專案' (create new project), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_projects' and 'get_project_detail' that are read-only, and from other creation tools like 'create_requirement', 'create_bug', and 'create_todo' that create different resource types.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it is clear from the name and description that one should use this to create a project, there are no usage guidelines for scenarios like when to use 'create_project' vs 'create_requirement' or what prerequisites exist. The description provides no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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