List by Category / 按分类列出素材

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only/safe operation, nor does it describe pagination, ordering, or result shape for the limit-bounded listing. It only restates the listing scope.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences (purpose then usage), mirrored bilingually with no filler. Efficient, though the bilingual duplication doubles the token footprint without adding new information.

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 simple, annotation-free read/list tool with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and basic usage adequately. The main residual gap is pagination/ordering behavior, which is minor for a browse operation.

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 category, subcategory, and limit are all fully documented in the schema, including the default and the 'omit subcategory' behavior. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (list/browse) and resource (assets under a category or subcategory) with scope qualifiers. It is clearly distinguishable from get_asset or browse_categories, though the distinction from search_assets is only implied by 'known category' rather than stated.

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?

'Use this to browse assets within a known category' gives an implied when-to-use condition, but it never names the alternatives (search_assets for unknown categories, browse_categories for discovery) or states exclusions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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