list_teach_targets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Clearly indicates it's a query operation ('查') returning {ok, items} with real-time aggregation. Could be more explicit about being read-only and safe, but sufficient given no destructive traits.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: first line states purpose and features, then usage guidance, then return format, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. Mentions aggregation fields but doesn't detail them. Output schema exists but not shown; description is complete enough for agent to use correctly.

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 0% but description fully explains all three parameters: target_type ('student'|'class', omit for both), keyword (fuzzy name filter), include_archived (True includes archived, default False). Adds meaning beyond 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 clearly states it lists teaching target cards with real-time aggregation, using specific verbs ('查' - query) and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools like create/update/archive targets.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use for duplicate checking before creating targets and for selecting scheduling targets ('建对象前查重、选排课对象都走它'), providing clear when-to-use and contextual alternatives.

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