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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the return fields (id/名称/时长/封面/链接) and the fuzzy-search nature of keyword, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination limits beyond page_size, or freshness/sorting of results.

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 tight, front-loaded passage: library and resource first, return fields next, parameter hint last. No wasted text, though the middle bar-dot concatenation is slightly list-like rather than prose.

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 output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what it will get. For a simple zero-required-parameter listing tool this is close to complete; only sorting/pagination-behavior detail 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates that keyword does fuzzy name matching, adding only marginal value over the schema's own '成片名称关键词' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) and resource (成片库「我的作品」里的视频成片), and even names the returned artifact type. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_materials, list_copywriting, and list_accounts, which target different resource libraries.

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 parenthetical '(可用于发布)' gives an implied usage context (results are publishable), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling list/status tools. Usage must be inferred.

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