list_project_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the tool returns labeled options with descriptions and default values, is free, and is a read-oriented pre-check step rather than a mutation. While it does not state side effects explicitly, '列出' plus the pipeline framing make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose before enumerating the option categories. The nested parentheses make it slightly harder to scan, but every clause contributes meaning and there is no wasted text.

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 description covers what the tool returns (all creation options with labels, descriptions, defaults), when to call it (before create_drama), and how to use the result (pass keys). Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for a parameterless list tool, though it does not give a precise example of the response shape.

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 takes 0 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description correctly implies this is a parameterless listing operation and does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 specific verb, '列出' (list), and a distinct resource: all options for creating a drama, including project type, aspect ratio, resolution, and video engine. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like create_drama by framing itself as the pre-creation option listing step, so an agent knows when to reach for it.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call it before creating a drama, let the user choose from the options, then pass the chosen keys to create_drama. It names the downstream sibling (create_drama) and explains how the returned values should be used, leaving little to inference.

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