lanhu_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. It only states the action (get a list) without disclosing any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or potential empty results. It does not go beyond the basic action, leaving the agent uninformed about call behavior.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose and scope. There is no wasted verbiage, and the essential dependency hint is embedded efficiently.

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 the tool is simple (one parameter, has output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits mention of potential pagination, result limits, or error cases, and the dependency on a prior call is only hinted at in the schema, not in the main description. This leaves minor gaps for an agent to infer.

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% and the schema already explains team_id with the same '从 lanhu_get_teams 获取' note. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for a well-covered parameter but does not exceed it.

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 verb '获取' (get) and the resource '设计项目列表' (design project list) scoped to a team. It distinguishes from lanhu_get_teams (which returns teams) but does not explicitly contrast with lanhu_search_projects, so it meets the clarity bar without full sibling differentiation.

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 a prerequisite hint by stating '从 lanhu_get_teams 获取' (obtained from lanhu_get_teams) for the team_id parameter, implying a dependency on that sibling tool. However, it does not offer explicit when-to-use versus lanhu_search_projects or any exclusions, leaving usage context partially implicit.

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