rank_innovation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the per-kind return field sets (standing in for a missing output schema) and an important lifecycle constraint — short media references are only valid for the current run of the MCP service. It does not explicitly state the tool is a pure read with no side effects, but nothing suggests otherwise.

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 the tool's identity, then organized by kind, then by output-reference handling — a logical progression with little filler. The clause describing the mobile discovery page ('像塑移动版发现页的精选列表，移动版展示的是模板') is the only mildly redundant passage, since the schema already explains the template/effect distinction.

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?

For a five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shapes per kind and the reference-resolution rule, which is what an agent most needs. It omits how pagination continues (the schema's next_offset does cover this) and gives no hint of result ordering or typical volume, minor gaps rather than blocking ones.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by mapping each kind value to the concrete records returned (official selections vs. creator monthly ranking), which is exactly the information an agent needs to pick kind. instance_id/project_path are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its coverage.

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 opens with a concrete resource ('创新计划的榜单') and then enumerates exactly what each kind returns (effect name, effect_id, tags, submission count, revenue, selected date, cover vs. rank, uid, nickname, work count, remix count, bonus). That is far more specific than the bare name, though it never names its ranking siblings (rank_list, rank_hotspots, rank_subjects) or states how it differs from them.

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 one explicit routing instruction is downstream: '*_ref / *_refs ... 交给 image_view' with a clear statement of what image_view does for each media type. There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling ranking tools, and no prerequisite or exclusion stated; usage is implied by the meaning of the kind values.

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