jcourse_list_my_reviews

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination trait and enumerates available filter dimensions, but says nothing about default ordering, result size/limits, or auth requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with the resource scope first and the filter capabilities after. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a 7-parameter listing tool with only 43% schema description coverage, the description is thin: default ordering, the relationship between ascend and order_by, and the practical difference from the other list_* siblings are all left unaddressed.

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 only 43%, so the description must carry weight; it names the four filter dimensions (keyword, semester, rating, sort) which maps onto q, semester, rating, order_by/ascend. However it adds no semantics beyond naming — no default sort direction, no note that ascend only matters with order_by, no constraint hints for rating or page_size.

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?

"分页读取我发布的评价" states a specific verb (读取) and a clearly scoped resource (我发布的评价), which distinguishes it from jcourse_list_reviews and jcourse_list_course_reviews. The sibling names are never referenced explicitly, so the agent must infer the distinction from the possessive scope alone.

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 possessive 我发布的 signals 'use this for my own reviews', and the filter list hints at narrowing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over jcourse_list_reviews or jcourse_list_followed_reviews, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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