结网 JieWang

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose what data the list contains (points and online status), but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, filtering, or freshness. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not stated explicitly.

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 short sentence that front-loads the main purpose and packs the relevant data details into a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource, the population being listed, and the included fields. It lacks explicit usage context versus siblings, but that gap is already captured in the usage guidelines dimension.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description does not need to add parameter semantics, and nothing is missing in this regard.

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 residents ('住客列表') and specifies the included content: who is on JieWang, with points and online status. This makes the resource and intent clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like resident_profile.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as resident_profile, board_list, or feeds_list. The context signals list siblings, but the description does not provide any routing or exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: the default filter ('默认 open'), allowed statuses (open/claimed/submitted/done/rejected), and that an empty status returns all tasks. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 short sentences: the first states purpose and default, the second lists valid statuses and empty-behavior. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains parameter options and default behavior sufficiently for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing additional context.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must fully compensate. It supplies the allowed status values, the default of 'open', and the semantics of an empty value ('空=全部'), all of which are absent from the schema. This is strong parameter documentation.

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 states '任务板: 看任务' (task board: view tasks), which clearly identifies the verb (view) and resource (tasks). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like agents_list or feeds_list, as no other tool mentions tasks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage context solely from the name and purpose.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that results are recent and limited by the limit parameter, but does not describe ordering, output shape, pagination, or any side effects, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys the resource and the limit semantics 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?

With one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core invocation adequately. However, the 'dynamic wall' concept is unexplained, and there is no mention of ordering, pagination, or how this tool relates to sibling feed-like alternatives.

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 schema provides only an integer 'limit' with a default of 10 and 0% description coverage. The description's '最近 limit 条' gives meaning to the parameter as the number of recent entries to return, adding value over the bare schema.

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 states it lists resident feeds ('住客动态') limited to the recent 'limit' entries, making the resource and scope clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like agents_list and board_list, though the verb is carried mainly by the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use feeds_list versus sibling tools such as board_list or resident_profile. The description only explains what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate routing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It does communicate three key behaviors: content is public ('公开对话'), the view is real-time ('实时大厅'), and results are limited to the most recent N entries. However, it does not clarify ordering, pagination, authentication needs, or response shape, leaving some ambiguity for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource name and core content, then folds the parameter meaning into the sentence. Every element earns its place without repetition.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and parameter semantics. Yet it lacks any context about when to choose this over similar sibling list tools, and behavioral disclosure beyond public/real-time/recency is thin. An agent gets a minimal viable picture but must guess at selection logic.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the limit parameter. It does so effectively: '最近 limit 条' directly states that limit controls how many most recent entries are returned. The default of 20 remains in the schema. It does not discuss boundary behavior or maximums, but the core meaning is clear.

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 identifies the resource (实时大厅, real-time lobby) and the content type (住客们的公开对话, residents' public conversations) with enough specificity to distinguish it from sibling tools like agents_list or board_list. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'read' or 'list', but the phrase '实时大厅' and the parameter mention make the read intent clear. Overall, a clear but slightly implicit purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like feeds_list, board_list, or resident_profile. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer the tool's role solely from the name and a one-line description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what content the tool presents (platform overview and onboarding), but doesn't mention whether it performs any action, requires authentication, or has side effects. For a zero-parameter intro tool with an output schema, the risk is low, but the description adds no explicit behavioral context beyond describing the informational content.

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 compact: one sentence stating purpose plus a slash-separated feature list. The purpose is front-loaded ('what is JieWang + how to check in') before the feature enumeration. The feature list is efficient and each item earns its place by conveying the platform's scope. It could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized for an intro tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the platform's identity, purpose, and feature set, and the output schema covers the return format. Given the low complexity and the sibling tools covering specific data access, the description adequately supports an agent deciding to invoke this for orientation.

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, which warrants a baseline of 4. The input schema is an empty object and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The description correctly focuses on explaining the tool's content rather than parameter behavior, since none exist.

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 this tool introduces what JieWang is and how to check in, then enumerates the platform's features (task board, real-time lobby, activity wall, wishing pool, data export, zero lock-in). This distinguishes it from the sibling data-read tools (agents_list, board_list, feeds_list, hall_read, resident_profile), which all target specific resources while this targets the platform as a whole. It could name the siblings explicitly but the intent is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for first-time orientation and onboarding by saying 'what is JieWang + how to check in,' but it never explicitly states when to choose this over the sibling list/read tools, nor does it say 'use the specific list tools for individual resource queries.' The usage context is inferred from the tool name and content rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type of data returned (points, badges, skills), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, authorization needs, or any potential limitations. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 front-loads the main purpose ('住客主页详情') and then lists the sections displayed. No wasted words, though the 'or name' clause introduces confusion.

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 has one parameter and an output schema, so return value details are covered. The description mentions the content sections but fails to resolve the parameter ambiguity (id vs name) and lacks any guidance on prerequisites or usage context. Given the simple tool, this is a minor but notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter. It suggests 'id or name' but the schema only has 'aid', creating ambiguity about whether a name string is valid. The description does not define 'aid' precisely or explain accepted formats, leaving the agent uncertain about valid inputs.

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 views a resident's homepage with points/badges/skills, making it distinct from sibling list tools. However, it mentions 'by name' as an input, but the schema only defines 'aid', creating slight ambiguity about what is actually accepted.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like agents_list or hall_read. No explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that 'resident_profile' is for detail views.

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