get_user_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It notes that the returned information is 'basically fixed' (该信息基本固定), conveying data stability. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 brief and front-loaded: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a concrete example. No redundant words or fluff; every element 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?

With no inputs and an output schema (though not shown here), the description provides an example of the output and notes that the data is stable. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The example compensates for any missing output schema details, and the 'basically fixed' note adds context about data volatility.

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 (schema defines none), and schema coverage is 100% since there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It correctly focuses on the return value.

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 (get) and resource (current logged-in user's project information on the energy efficiency platform) and provides a concrete example of the return structure. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_users, query_my_defects, and monitor_list, which target different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose makes it obvious that it is for querying user projects, there is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools. The context of siblings implies distinct resources, but no direct guidance.

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