anon_get_physical_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the auth/scoping note that the project is derived from the API key and no projectId is needed. It says nothing about pagination or result limits, which is a gap for a list endpoint.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with purpose, then access, then the filter list. The raw endpoint path is slightly redundant but not wasteful enough to harm the structure.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access, filters and the API-key scoping rule, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong (passing projectId). Only pagination/result-shape guidance is absent, a minor gap.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, so the description must carry weight; it does enumerate the filter/sort dimensions (category, status, responsible, tag) matching the nested query fields. However it adds no syntax, multi-value, or default details beyond the field names the schema already lists.

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 and resource ('列出物资条目' – list physical items) and names the filterable dimensions, which distinguishes it from siblings like anon_get_physical_summary and anon_get_physical_items_item_id. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'项目成员可用' gives an access precondition and the supported filters imply the read/query use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. summary vs. single item vs. categories). Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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