cx_s_list_exams

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

在没有任何 annotations 的情况下，描述明确声明“只读取，不进入答题”，说明了操作是只读且不会进入答题流程，这对 agent 选择和执行非常重要。虽未提及认证或频率限制，但对一个列表工具而言已经提供了关键行为信息。

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?

描述只有一句中文，先说明核心动作，再补充输出内容和只读行为，信息密度高且没有冗余。每个部分都有价值，结构紧凑。

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?

工具只有一个参数且有输出 schema，描述已覆盖用途、输出内容和只读行为，整体较完整。但 courseRef 参数语义缺失，也缺少与其他列表工具的使用边界说明，因此仍有明显缺口。

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?

输入 schema 中 courseRef 没有任何描述，schema description coverage 为 0%，描述也没有说明 courseRef 的格式、取值来源或具体含义。仅凭“课程考试”猜测 courseRef 是课程标识，缺少足够的参数语义支持。

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?

描述明确指出操作动词“列出”、资源“课程考试”以及返回内容“标题/状态/入口链接”，用途非常明确。它与兄弟工具如 cx_s_list_homeworks、cx_s_list_chapters 通过“考试”这一具体资源自然区分开。

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?

描述隐含了使用场景：需要列出课程考试时使用此工具，但没有明确说明何时不应使用或应改用其他兄弟工具。缺少与 cx_s_list_homeworks 等列表类工具的显式对比或排除条件。

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