list_projects

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 states the tool lists accessible projects and returns identifiers and names, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication (implied by '用户可访问' - user accessible), pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or if it's read-only. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences in Chinese. The first sentence states the action and scope, and the second specifies the return format. There is zero wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return format, but lacks details on authentication requirements, error handling, or behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the minimum viable threshold for a simple list 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the description does not need to compensate for missing schema 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 tool's purpose: '列出用户可访问的所有项目' (list all projects accessible to the user) and specifies the return format: '返回项目标识和名称列表' (returns a list of project identifiers and names). It uses a specific verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('项目' - projects), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_releases' or 'search_work_items'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_releases' or 'search_work_items' for project-related queries. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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