eda_dmt_project_get_all_projects_uuid

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 the mutual exclusivity of teamUuid and folderUuid and the precedence rule, which is valuable. However, it doesn't state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any potential performance implications for large numbers of projects, or that it returns a list of UUID strings only. The description adds some behavior but not full 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 reasonably concise, using bullet points for the remarks, which improves readability. The signature line is useful. Some redundancy between the signature and the Chinese description, but overall it's efficient. Front-loads the main purpose before details.

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 a simple list fetch with optional filters, and the description covers the filter semantics, mutual exclusion, and return type (array of UUIDs). No output schema exists, but the return type is stated in the signature. It's complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could mention that workspaceUuid scopes the team/folder, which it does.

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 input schema provides placeholder 'args' array and windowId, with no real parameter details. But the description names the actual parameters teamUuid, folderUuid, workspaceUuid and explains their meaning and constraints. This goes beyond the schema, which has 100% coverage but is generic. The description adds the semantics, but could be more detailed on types or examples.

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 that it retrieves all project UUIDs, with optional filtering by team or folder. The function name and signature also align with this purpose. It is distinguished from siblings like get_project_info and get_current_project_info by explicitly being a bulk fetch of UUIDs, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 provides clear usage context: when teamUuid is specified, get projects under that team; when folderUuid specified, under that folder; workspaceUuid further scopes. It also specifies that teamUuid and folderUuid are mutually exclusive, with folderUuid taking precedence if both given. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the when-to-use is clear enough.

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