maimemo_list_interpretations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses a behavioral filter — results are limited to the caller's own self-created interpretations rather than all definitions — but says nothing about ordering, result shape, or whether an empty result is possible.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the scoping detail in the second line. The two lines partially restate each other (获取释义 / 获取单词下自己创建的释义), which is mild redundancy rather than bloat, so it stays efficient overall.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: the resource, the scoping word parameter, and the self-created filter. Remaining gaps (pagination/ordering) are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and there is a single documented parameter (voc_id = 单词 id), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 单词下 confirms that voc_id scopes to a vocabulary word but adds no format, ID-source, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a clear verb+resource (get interpretations / 释义) and adds a meaningful scope: only interpretations the user created under a given vocabulary word. This distinguishes it from create/update/delete interpretation siblings, though it never names them explicitly. The opening line alone is a near-tautology, but the second line carries the real specification.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to view its own interpretations for a word, and that mutation tools are the alternatives. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over maimemo_get_vocabulary or other list tools, and no prerequisites called out.

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