get_favorites_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds auth context ('当前登录用户') and return limitations ('不包含详细内容和图片'), which are useful behavioral disclosures. It does not mention rate limits or error handling, but for a simple read tool these are not critical.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes key limitations without unnecessary detail. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and return content exclusions. It does not explain pagination or error behavior, but these are not essential given the tool's low complexity and the presence of sibling tools for more specific needs.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (single parameter limit with description, default, min, max). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 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 clearly states it retrieves the note list from the current logged-in user's favorites, with a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('收藏夹'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_batch_notes_from_favorites and download_note_images by specifying the scope and return content.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (getting a list of favorites) and explicitly states it does not include detailed content or images, which implies other tools should be used for those needs. However, it does not name the alternatives explicitly.

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