查询用户参与的 TAPD 项目

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: default query for current user, automatic filtering of organization entries, and the relationship with sibling tools for aggregated queries. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then add filtering and usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose, defaults, filtering, and integration with sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly describe the output structure (e.g., that it returns workspace IDs or full project objects), which would add completeness. For a simple list tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats some details (default user for nick, default false for include_organization) but adds minimal extra meaning beyond explaining the aggregation use case, which is covered in context.

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 lists TAPD projects for a user, distinguishes from siblings like tapd_list_bugs by explaining it provides workspace IDs for aggregated queries, and specifies default behavior and filtering of organization entries.

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 explicitly guides when to use this tool (to obtain workspace IDs, especially before calling tapd_list_bugs/stories without workspace_id), implies when not to use (if workspace IDs are known or need user nick lookup with tapd_search_users), and explains the default filtering behavior.

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