blacklist.test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys a diagnostic, test-oriented purpose and implies a non-mutating simulation, but it does not explicitly state that no blacklist entries are changed, what rules are being tested against, or whether authorization or existing rules are required.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action, target, and purpose. There is no filler or repetition, and the debugging intent 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?

The description gives a clear one-line purpose and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, with no annotations and several undocumented optional parameters, the definition leaves gaps about side effects, rule context, and when to use this versus other blacklist tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains 'title' as the product title to test, but the optional parameters badge, location, and original_price are left completely unexplained, even though they may affect which rules match during testing.

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 and object: testing a product title to see which rules are hit, explicitly marked as a debugging action. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like blacklist.add, blacklist.list, and blacklist.remove, which perform actual blacklist management rather than simulation.

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 phrase '调试用' communicates that the tool is intended for debugging, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions such as 'not for production use' or 'does not modify the blacklist.'

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