maimemo_list_phrases

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context that only user-created example sentences under a word are returned, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral details.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the specific scoping detail in the second line. The first line is slightly generic and partly redundant with the second, but overall it is efficient.

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 read-only tool with one fully documented required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks usage guidance against sibling tools, but no output schema is needed for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the only parameter voc_id already has a clear schema description ('单词 id'). The tool description adds no additional syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: retrieve example sentences under a word, specifically those created by the user. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as getting interpretations or vocabulary details.

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?

The description only says what is retrieved; it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like maimemo_list_interpretations or maimemo_get_vocabulary. There are no exclusions or conditions for selecting it.

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