get_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. While it mentions the tool returns '格式化的專案列表' (formatted project list), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, whether results are paginated, or what happens if no projects are accessible. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral 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 brief but could be more efficiently structured. The two-line format with 'Returns:' as a separate line adds structure, but the content is minimal. While not verbose, it doesn't maximize information density - the second line essentially restates what's implied by the first line (a list tool returns a list).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context. It mentions the tool returns a 'formatted project list' but doesn't describe the format, structure, or contents of that list. For a tool that presumably returns data that will be used by an AI agent, more information about the return format would be helpful, especially without an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though there are no parameters to cover). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't incorrectly mention any parameters that don't exist.

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: '取得可存取的專案列表' (Get accessible project list). It specifies the verb ('取得' - get) and resource ('專案列表' - project list), and adds the qualifier '可存取的' (accessible) which provides useful context about scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_issues' or 'get_my_issues', which prevents a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'list_project_issues', 'get_my_issues', and 'search_issues' available, there's no indication of when this general project listing tool is appropriate versus more specific issue-focused tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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