cx_s_list_materials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only listing returning metadata (name/objectId), but does not address auth requirements, error behavior, or pagination. This is acceptable for a simple list operation but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the operation, scope, and output in minimal words.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the main operation and return shape. However, it omits guidance on the required courseRef parameter and any situational context, so an agent must infer how to populate the only argument.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain courseRef, such as whether it is a course ID, code, or reference object, or where to obtain it. The parameter name is self-descriptive at a high level, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific action ('列出' / list) and resource (the course '资料' / materials directory), and specifies the returned data (file name/objectId). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cx_s_download_material (download) and cx_s_list_chapters (chapter listing).

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 implies it should be used when the agent needs to enumerate files in a course's materials directory, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling list/download tools, nor mention prerequisites such as a valid courseRef.

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