列出文章

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

With no annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: public vs cookie-required backend access, server-side page-size enforcement, actual pageSize in response, draft counts behavior, and the limitation that 'not seen' does not mean 'not published'. This fully compensates for missing 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?

Dense but every clause adds operational value: scope defaults, cookie requirements, draft visibility, server page-size behavior, and exclusion of publish verification. Information is front-loaded and no filler exists.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still explains key response aspects (pageSize actual value, counts categories) and covers prerequisites, alternatives, and limitations. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains scope semantics and page_size being potentially ignored, but does not explicitly describe the page parameter, though its pagination meaning is standard and schema-enforced.

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?

Description starts with a specific '列出账号的文章' (lists account articles) and clearly separates the two scopes: published via public API and all via author backend. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_article and verify_article.

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?

Explicitly states when to use scope='all' (to see drafts) and why it is the only way to answer 'what drafts do I have', noting get_article requires an ID. It also explicitly says not to use it to verify publish success and directs to verify_article instead.

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