list_stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It mentions the sort order ('按官方顺序排列') but does not state whether the tool is read-only, the result format, or any other behavioral details. This is insufficient.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the parameter. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main points: what it does and the parameter. It is not explicitly stated that it is read-only, but that is implied. The lack of pagination details is a minor 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?

The input schema has no description for event_id, so the description compensates fully by providing an example ('act31side') and the source ('可从 list_story_events 获取'). This adds meaningful context beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('列出所有剧情章节' - list all story chapters) and the scope ('指定活动' - specified activity, in official order). It distinguishes from siblings like list_story_events and read_story.

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 an example parameter value ('act31side') and indicates where to get it (from list_story_events). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_story or list_story_events.

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