列出接口分类

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns all categories and per-category interface counts, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the data is cached, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the API list is unavailable. For a simple read-only listing tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes concrete examples of categories. The recommendation is appended naturally without bloat. Every word 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned (categories and counts) and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of authentication or data freshness, but these are not critical for a simple category listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (categories and counts), which is the closest equivalent to parameter/output semantics. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description states a specific verb ('列出' = list), a clear resource ('聚水潭开放平台 API 的全部分类'), and the key content (categories like 基础API, 订单API, 库存API plus each category's interface count). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as the first step in browsing documentation, which differentiates it from list_apis/search_apis/get_api_doc.

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 explicitly recommends this tool as the first step for browsing the documentation ('推荐作为浏览文档的第一步'), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the recommendation plus the sibling names (list_apis, search_apis, get_api_doc) make the usage context clear enough.

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