resource_style_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of scope, filtering behavior, or what a "first-class translation resource" implies operationally. The parenthetical is a classification label, not behavioral context.

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 phrase, front-loaded with the verb and free of padding. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 parameterless-required read tool with full schema coverage and annotations stating it is non-destructive, the essentials are covered. However, with no output schema and no description of what the listed style entries contain, an agent gets only a minimal picture of the result.

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 parameters (project, workdir) are self-documented with defaults, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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?

Contains a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (风格要求/style requirements), making it clear this enumerates style resources rather than mutating them. It does not explicitly contrast with the mutation siblings resource_style_add / resource_style_remove, so the differentiation comes only from the tool name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the add/remove siblings that share the same resource. The agent must infer that this is the read-side counterpart to resource_style_add and resource_style_remove.

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