maimemo_list_vocabulary

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity behavior of the filters, which is real added context, but says nothing about result size, pagination, or return shape.

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 lines, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded followed by the key constraint. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a tool with a nested body object.

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 list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential constraint but omits anything about volume/limits or the shape of returned entries. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents ids and spellings (max 1000 each). The description adds material meaning beyond the schema by stating the two filters are mutually exclusive and only one will be honored, which the schema does not express.

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 clear verb and resource ("查询单词" / query words), which tells the agent this retrieves vocabulary entries. However, it provides no differentiation from siblings such as maimemo_get_vocabulary or maimemo_list_notes, leaving the agent to guess which lookup path applies.

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?

"查询条件互斥，只能生效一个" gives a concrete invocation constraint (only one filter can take effect), which is useful. But there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over maimemo_get_vocabulary or other listing siblings, so usage is only partially covered.

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