blacklist.list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. '列出所有屏蔽规则' conveys a read-only, exhaustive listing operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any constraints on the response. The behavior is implied rather than explicitly detailed.

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, front-loaded sentence with the verb and object clearly stated and no filler content. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

With no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the core call requirements are covered by the short description. However, it does not specify the ownership or scope of the listed rules, nor does it reference sibling tools for alternative use cases, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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, and the empty input schema fully covers this case. Since there are no parameters to document, parameter-semantic risk is minimal, and the baseline of 4 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?

The description uses a specific verb, '列出' (list), and a clear resource, '屏蔽规则' (blocking rules), and adds '所有' (all) to define the full scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like blacklist.add, blacklist.remove, and blacklist.test, which perform different operations.

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 implies that this tool should be used when all blacklist rules need to be viewed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as blacklist.test. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routes are mentioned.

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