查看项目列表

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it is a listing operation with status filtering, but does not disclose behavior like pagination, sorting, or the meaning of 'local'. With annotations present, the description contributes minimal extra behavioral context.

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 entire description is one sentence: '列出本地经营项目，可按状态筛选。' It is front-loaded with the main action and then adds the filter capability. There is no filler, and every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple list tool with only two optional parameters and full annotation coverage, this is minimally adequate. However, it does not describe the return shape, the 'local' qualifier's meaning, or any pagination behavior. With siblings like project_get and project_snapshot, a bit more context on when this list is the right choice would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention '可按状态筛选' (can filter by status), which clarifies the purpose of the status parameter. However, it says nothing about the limit parameter or its default/maximum values, even though the schema defines them. The description adds value for status but leaves limit unexplained.

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 '列出本地经营项目' (list local business projects), which identifies the verb and resource. It also mentions filtering by status, which distinguishes it from siblings like project_get and project_create. An agent can immediately understand this is a list operation.

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 context that status filtering is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_get or project_snapshot. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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