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. It states the tool returns a puzzle list, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with two lines: one stating the purpose and another indicating the return value. However, the 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant since it just restates '谜题列表' (puzzle list) without adding value. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate the unnecessary return annotation.

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. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structure of the puzzle list), error handling, or any behavioral context. For a list operation, this leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it appropriately avoids redundant information.

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: '列出所有可用的谜题' (List all available puzzles). It uses a specific verb ('列出' - list) and resource ('谜题' - puzzles). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_puzzle' which likely retrieves a specific puzzle, so it doesn't fully distinguish 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 like 'get_puzzle' or 'get_prompt'. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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