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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (id/名称/类型/链接/封面), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about permissions, pagination limits, or read-only nature beyond the verb 'list'.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded before the return shape. The '快工场 ·' branding prefix is minor noise but the rest of the text 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, fully-optional read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage, the description gives scope plus the returned fields, which substitutes adequately for the missing output schema. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so keyword, page_size and material_type are already fully documented in the schema, including the default of 'image' and the 20-item default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (素材中心的图片/视频素材), and clarifies scope by naming what lives there (生成的参考图、混剪素材). An agent can distinguish it from list_my_works or list_image_models, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope note that generated reference images and clip-mix materials are all here, which suggests this is the browsing entry point. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison against alternatives such as list_my_works.

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