list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it queries all Loki data sources in real-time, defaults to last 24h, and returns data source attribution and registration status. This is useful behavioral information, though it doesn't mention potential limitations or side effects (e.g., performance, read-only nature). Could be more explicit, but given no annotations, it's decent.

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, dense sentence that conveys purpose, scope, default behavior, and usage context. No fluff, all relevant info.

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 provides key context: it aggregates registered and discovered projects, defaults to a 24h window, and includes data source and status attribution. However, there is no output schema, so the exact return structure (fields, counts) is not specified, which could be important for an agent to plan further steps. But given it's a discovery tool, the level of detail is acceptable.

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 no parameters, and the schema clearly shows zero properties, so there is nothing ambiguous. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the 100% schema coverage ensures the agent knows there are none.

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 'list all queryable projects' and specifies two sources (registered projects with Chinese aliases, and real-time discovered app/group combinations from Loki data sources). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like list_datasources, which focuses on data sources themselves, and list_label_values, which deals with label keys. The verb 'list' and resource 'projects' are specific.

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?

It explicitly says to call this when you don't know the project name ('不知道项目叫什么时先调这个'), providing clear contextual guidance. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but the positive directive is strong. Alternatives are implied through sibling tools like list_datasources, but not explicitly excluded.

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