yapi_list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context about account-scoped visibility and the lack of a required project ID configuration. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or how list results will be presented, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant language. The primary function is front-loaded, followed by the key usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'when'. Since there is no output schema, explicitly stating that the result includes project IDs and how to consume the returned list would make it fully complete.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description correctly adds nothing about parameters and no information is missing.

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 action (列出/list), the resource (YApi 项目), and the scope (当前账号能看到的/visible to the current account). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which focus on interfaces and mocks, by framing this as the first step when the project ID is unknown.

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 context: use this first when the project ID is unknown, and no YAPI_PROJECT_ID pre-configuration is required. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against specific sibling tools, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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