展开标签

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. "列出" implies a safe read, and the usage framing makes the intent clear, but it says nothing about permissions, result size, or pagination for tags that expand to hundreds of entries. Adequate but not rich for an annotation-free tool.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, trigger, and disambiguation, in that order. No filler, and the most important routing information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and when to reach for it. The only gap is that it never hints at the return shape (a list of item ids), which an agent calling without an output schema would have to discover at runtime.

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% and the schema already spells out the id format and the no-`#`-prefix rule ("forge:ingots/iron"). The description adds nothing about the single `tag` parameter, so the baseline 3 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 ("列出某个标签包含的所有物品") and immediately grounds it in the concrete scenario where a recipe input shows `#xxx`. It also distinguishes itself from the reverse lookup, naming the siblings that handle that direction (search_items, get_recipes_for_output).

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ("配方的输入里出现 #xxx 时") plus an explicit when-not with the correct alternatives for the inverse question ("想知道某物品属于哪些标签，用 search_items 或 get_recipes_for_output 的结果"). The agent has no inference left to do.

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