list_available_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states '列出' (list) and '查看' (view), indicating a read-only operation with no modifications. This fully discloses the non-destructive nature of the tool, exceeding the baseline for transparency.

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, with a clear explanation followed by the parameter details and examples. It avoids unnecessary prose, and the structure (purpose, parameters, return, examples) is highly scannable and efficient. Every sentence contributes to the understanding.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior: it defines the parameter, explains the return format (JSON list of dates), and provides usage examples. Although there is a minimal output schema, the description is self-sufficient and leaves no significant gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 provides detailed meaning for the 'source' parameter, listing all three valid values ('local', 'remote', 'both') and the default value. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only has a default and no description. The coverage is complete and enriches the parameter's semantics.

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's function: '列出本地/远程可用的日期范围' (list available date ranges from local/remote). The verb 'list' and resource 'available dates' are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'resolve_date_range' or 'get_news_by_date'.

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 use case: to view which dates have data available in local or remote storage. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and the examples clarify typical invocations, making the usage clear enough.

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