inspiration_list

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that all category tabs are returned on every call, that tab defaults to the first (全部), and — critically — that *_ref references are only valid for the lifetime of this MCP service run. That lifetime caveat is a real behavioral constraint an agent could not infer from structured fields. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, though these are low-risk for a read.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the field list, then the forward reference to inspiration_detail, then a separate paragraph on ref resolution and lifetime. Every sentence carries information, though the ref paragraph is somewhat dense and could be tightened; the explanatory gloss on what an inspiration is is justified for grounding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining that media come back as short *_ref references that must be resolved via image_view, with videos/audio returning original addresses. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only cross-tool selection guidance versus non-inspiration listing tools is absent.

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%, so the schema already documents tab, count, cursor, instance_id and project_path including the 全部 default and next_cursor paging. The description only reinforces the tab-source rule and does not add syntax or format details beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb + resource + scope: paginated listing of inspirations under a category, and defines what an inspiration is (effect ideas published by officials and creators, matching the homepage '灵感' tab). It also enumerates the returned fields (inspiration_id, title, tags, author, favorite count, favorited flag, AI flag, hotspot, cover_ref), so an agent can tell instantly that this is the discovery/listing tool distinct from inspiration_detail.

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 routes the agent forward: 'after getting inspiration_id, use inspiration_detail to see details', and explains that tab values come from the tabs returned in a previous response. It stops short of naming when NOT to use this tool (e.g. versus library_list or rank_hotspots when the agent wants hotspots or assets), so no exclusions are given.

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