resource_deviation_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description does add semantic value by defining what counts as a deviation, but it says nothing about the result shape, ordering, or whether the project/workdir defaults are resolved silently.

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 front-loaded line with no filler; the verb and resource lead. Slightly terse — one clause about the return contents would have fit without bloat.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and domain meaning adequately, and the schema covers the parameters. The only real gap is an indication of what the agent receives back, which is largely inferable from the name.

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 both optional parameters (project, workdir) carry their own defaults and explanations, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond it, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

Names a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (声明的偏离/declared deviations), and the parenthetical gloss ('有意留空 / 经批准的表达式改写') pins down exactly what a deviation is, so the agent knows the domain object. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling resource_deviation_add/remove pair, though the verb makes the read variant inferable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the fact that these deviations are *declared* (i.e. already registered) hints this is the inspection step in the add/list/remove workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no mention of alternatives such as resource_term_list or resource_supplement_list that an agent might confuse it with.

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