排行榜列表

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and freshness profile is covered. The description adds the scope qualifier that only official charts are returned (no user-generated lists), but says nothing about return format, chart identifiers, or whether the list is static or rotating.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first defines what is returned, the second routes the agent to the follow-up tool. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how to act on it. Slightly more detail on the shape of each chart entry (ids/names) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty schema matches the no-argument nature described.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieve ALL official NetEase Cloud charts, with concrete examples (飙升榜、新歌榜、热歌榜、原创榜) that pin down the scope. It is clearly a chart-listing tool rather than a playlist or recommendation tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_recommended_playlists.

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 second sentence gives an explicit next step and names the alternative tool: use get_playlist to see the songs inside a chart. It lacks an explicit exclusion against get_recommended_playlists/get_daily_recommendations, but the usage context is clear.

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