vela_list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which adequately convey the tool's safety. The description adds the API endpoint (GET /api/v1/projects) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. This is sufficient given the high annotation coverage.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds usage context. Every sentence is necessary and concise, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with an output schema and strong annotations. The description provides the API endpoint and usage context. It does not mention pagination or response formats, but these are covered by the schema. Overall, it is mostly complete for a read-only list tool.

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 description does not mention any parameters (page, page_size, response_format) despite the input schema having 0% description coverage. The schema itself has some structure (titles, defaults, ranges) but lacks descriptions. Since the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage, the semantic value is minimal.

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 (list), resource (projects), and purpose (before creating an application). It also includes the API endpoint, which helps confirm the action. This distinguishes it from siblings like vela_list_applications and vela_list_project_targets.

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 explicit context: '创建应用前用于确认可选项目' (used to confirm selectable projects before creating an application). This gives good guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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