share_list_my_uploads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description only adds that results are paginated, which is modest added context for a read-only listing tool; nothing about ordering or default page behavior beyond the schema.

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 sentence with zero padding, front-loading the pagination aspect. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of any routing or behavioral detail.

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 and the annotations cover the safety profile, so return-value explanation is not needed. Still, for a listing tool sitting among ~50 siblings with overlapping material-listing capabilities, the definition gives the agent no way to confirm this is the right choice over the alternatives.

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 (page, page_size) carry their own Chinese descriptions with defaults and bounds. The description's mention of 分页 mirrors the schema without adding format, ordering, or max-page guidance, so the baseline 3 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 names a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (我上传的资料/my uploads) plus the pagination scope, so its domain is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as share_list_course_materials or share_search_materials, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other list/search/material tools in the sibling set, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the word 我上传的.

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