list_matters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further: no mention of scope, ordering, whether results are names only or full matter records, or any pagination/limit behavior beyond the safety hints already given.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste and the operation front-loaded. It is efficiently sized for a zero-parameter list tool, though its brevity leaves ambiguity rather than adding precision.

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?

The description does state that names are returned ('名称'), which partially compensates for the missing output schema. But for a listing tool it omits result scope, ordering, and what 'shared' means, so it is only minimally complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and there are no parameters left undocumented.

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 gives a verb ('列出' / list) plus a resource ('共享事项名称' / shared matter names), so the basic operation is inferable. However, the qualifier '共享' (shared) is unexplained — it is unclear whether this lists all matters, only shared ones, or matters shared with the caller — and there is no explicit differentiation from siblings like create_matter or relate_matters.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_context or read_record, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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