list_rosters

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the description does not need to cover safety. It usefully adds the fixed page size of 20 items per page and the case_id continuation path to get_roster, but it says nothing about the maximum page cap, what an empty result means, or how summaries differ from full rosters.

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?

One compact sentence with two clauses, front-loading the resource and scope, then the workflow step. Every element earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description does convey the return shape (summary rows with case_id, paginated by 20) and the workflow continuation, which covers a lot. However, for a four-parameter filtered list tool, the unexplained faction_id and release_id filters, plus no guidance on paging past the first page, leave the definition incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the four parameters, yet it explains only report_id (implicitly, as 该报告) and the page size. The faction_id and release_id filters, which determine what gets listed, are never mentioned, so the agent cannot infer what those parameters do from either source.

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: 列出该报告的军表摘要 (list roster summaries for this report), and it also says that get_roster is the companion call for details, so the agent can distinguish this summary listing from the detail fetch. It does not clarify the relationship to list_reports or the other sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 specifies the context in which to use the tool: to browse public rosters attached to a given report, and it prescribes the follow-up step of reading case_id from the results and then calling get_roster. It gives no explicit exclusions about when NOT to use it, and it does not say when faction_id or release_id filtering is appropriate.

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