list_ed_updates

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 value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (更新分组 and 同步时间) and, via the personal-scope wording plus the peek cursor semantics, signals that this is a cursor-advancing personal feed. That is meaningful context on top of the annotation.

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 tightly packed clauses that are front-loaded: what it lists, then the sibling routing, then the return shape. No wasted words, though the sibling routing could be trimmed slightly.

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 it is essentially complete: annotations carry the safety profile, all params are schema-documented, and the description even states the return structure (groups + sync time) despite no output schema. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so all four parameters (peek, limit, since, course) are already documented in the schema, including the cursor behavior of peek. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (列/list) and resource (Ed 新帖、新回复、本人相关未读回复), and explicitly contrasts with the two sibling tools search_ed_threads and read_ed_thread. An agent can distinguish this from its siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: browse/search historical posts → search_ed_threads, read a full post → read_ed_thread, while this tool surfaces fresh updates. The when-to-use and alternatives are named directly rather than implied.

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