list_swagger_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'list' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and the scope is stated, but the description does not disclose output shape, ordering, pagination, or whether configuration state is refreshed. For a simple listing tool this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every word adds semantic content.

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?

For a parameterless list operation, the description covers the essential operation and scope. It does not describe the returned fields, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 has zero parameters, and the description reinforces this by saying 'all configured' projects are listed with no filtering or selection. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a direct action ('列出'/'list') and a concrete scope ('所有已配置的Swagger项目'/'all configured Swagger projects'). This clearly identifies the operation and separates it from sibling tools that fetch endpoints, schemas, or details.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need an inventory of configured Swagger projects. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer when this is appropriate.

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