works_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses cursor-based pagination (next_cursor, null on last page), that each work may have null effect_id/publish_count, that a project window must be open, and, importantly, that *_ref references are only valid for the lifetime of the current MCP service run. It does not state that the operation is read-only, or describe any rate or size limits.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the workflow handoff and reference-lifetime note follow in a logical order. The final paragraph on *_ref short references is somewhat generic, but it is still load-bearing because it tells the agent to route them through image_view.

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, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does: template_id, title, tags, effect_id/publish_count with null handling, usage count, package size, cover_ref and gif_ref, plus pagination cursor semantics. Given six all-optional parameters and no annotations, this is close to complete; only explicit read-only and permission expectations are missing.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that category_id values come from the categories list returned by this tool and that instance_id/project_path can be omitted when only one project window is open, but it adds little beyond the schema text.

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 specific verb and resource: paginated listing of works under one category of the Xiangsu homepage Templates section, and it explains what those works are (complete official/user-submitted projects). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings such as works_search, works_by_effect, and works_download.

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 description gives a concrete workflow handoff: once you have a template_id, use works_download to download the project, and it says to always pass all returned categories. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with works_search or works_by_effect, so the choice among the listing/search siblings is left to inference.

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