Browse Categories / 浏览分类体系

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (complete taxonomy structure with bilingual Chinese/English names) and implicitly that this is a read-only enumeration. It omits any note on result size, pagination, or caching, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, usage follows in the last. The bilingual duplication roughly doubles the length, which is redundant for an English-only reader, but the pairing is presumably intentional and neither version contains filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool with no annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back, in what languages, and when to call it. Only secondary details like response size or ordering are absent, which is acceptable here.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and takes no arguments.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus the exact resources returned (categories, subcategories, series, forms) in the SciGlyph library, so the agent knows precisely what it gets. It partially differentiates from siblings by implying a survey-first role, but does not explicitly contrast with sciglyph_library_info or sciglyph_list_by_category, which sound closely related.

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?

Gives clear sequencing guidance: 'Use this tool first to understand the library's organization before searching for specific assets,' which ties it to the search workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming search_assets as the explicit alternative in the English text.

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