list_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint (content records need host_text authorization) and a note about job lists, but the phrasing is cryptic and says nothing about pagination semantics or result ordering.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary operation front-loaded; little waste. The second sentence's phrasing ('job列表不重提') is ambiguous enough to slightly undercut clarity, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 4-parameter, paginated list tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves pagination behavior, return shape, and the meaning of limit/offset unexplained. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description is only minimally sufficient.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It lists record kinds that partially mirror the enum, but says nothing about limit, offset, or project_id semantics, nor about how pagination is bounded. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (paginated retrieval) and enumerates the record resources (works, versions, jobs, notes, relations, searches, assessments). An agent can tell this is the list/collection reader, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces (e.g., read_record for single records).

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?

Provides one conditional rule (content records require host_text authorization) and one exclusion note ('job列表不重提'), which hints at usage boundaries. However, it never contrasts itself with read_record or search_library, so the agent must infer when to page records vs fetch a single one.

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