vela_list_project_targets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API endpoint and the purpose (pre-deployment validation) but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or response structure. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes the API endpoint as supplementary info. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose text.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and all parameters documented, the description is sufficient. It states purpose, usage context, and API reference. Slight deduction for not mentioning that results are specifically for the given project, though this is implied by the resource scoping.

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 coverage is 100%: both project_name and response_format have Chinese descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool lists available delivery targets for a specified project, using a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('项目可用的交付目标'). It differentiates from sibling tool vela_list_targets by explicitly scoping to a project, and mentions the use case (pre-deployment validation).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: '部署前确认目标合法性' (confirm target legality before deployment). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as comparing with vela_list_targets which lists targets globally without project scope.

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