yupao_list_presets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces the no-network trait (useful but largely duplicative of openWorldHint=false) and says nothing about what is returned or whether presets persist between sessions.

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 short sentence with the core action front-loaded and the scoping caveat second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 could usefully say what a returned preset looks like (names, IDs, search criteria) or that an empty list is possible. For a 0-parameter local read tool this is minor, but the return shape is left entirely unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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 and resource ('读取本机保存的搜索预设' – read locally saved search presets) and adds a scope qualifier ('不请求鱼泡') that separates it from network-touching siblings like yupao_search_preset. It never names those siblings directly, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 'local only, no network request' clause implies when to prefer this over yupao_search_preset (e.g., offline or avoid session requirements), but the choice is left to inference. There is no explicit 'use this when… / use X instead when…' statement.

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