list_puzzles_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool returns a puzzle list, it doesn't describe format, pagination, error conditions, or any side effects. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is brief but includes unnecessary structural elements. The 'Returns:' section adds minimal value since it just restates the obvious (returns a puzzle list). The two-sentence structure could be condensed to a single, more direct statement without losing meaning.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a list operation. It doesn't specify what 'available puzzles' means, the format of the returned list, or any constraints. For a tool that presumably returns data, more context about the response structure would be helpful.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining a baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters where the schema handles documentation.

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 the tool's purpose as '列出所有可用的谜题' (list all available puzzles), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_puzzle' (which likely retrieves a specific puzzle), so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'list_puzzles_tool' versus 'get_puzzle' or 'get_prompt', nor any context about prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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