anon_get_custom_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are sorted by createdAt ascending, deactivated creators render as "未知用户", and no projectId is required because the project is inferred from the API key.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then ordering/edge-case, then auth note. Fairly tight, though the raw URL path restates information that adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately: ordering, the deactivated-creator fallback, and access scope are all disclosed. For a zero-param list tool this is 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 this scores 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating no projectId needs to be passed, which preempts an agent from inventing a parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("列出自定义工具" / list custom tools) and the URL path confirms the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this read/list operation from the sibling write operations (anon_post_custom_tools, anon_patch_custom_tools_tool_id, anon_delete_custom_tools_tool_id).

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?

It states who may access (project members) and that the project is auto-determined by the API key, which is useful context. However, it never explicitly routes the agent (e.g., "use post_custom_tools to create one"); the usage is only implied by the operation being a listing.

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