永久素材列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated, which the schema's count/offset parameters already convey; there is no information about ordering, return shape, or limits on total retrievable items (offset max is a schema detail the description never contextualizes).

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 filler, which is appropriately front-loaded. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient, since it omits any usage or behavioral context an agent would need.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (item fields, ordering, how the four material types are represented). It says nothing about return values, so an agent must discover the response shape by trial.

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 100%, with type enums, count bounds (1-20), and offset semantics all documented in the schema itself. The description's '分页' restates the pagination concept without adding format, ordering, or default behavior information, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('分页获取永久素材列表' – paginated retrieval of the permanent material list), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the sibling wechat_count_materials, which also touches the permanent material collection, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 wechat_count_materials or the draft-listing siblings. The word '分页' hints at a use case for large collections, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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