gpss_codes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description correctly does not contradict it. Beyond that the description adds no behavioral context such as whether the code list is static or versioned, or how large a payload it returns — and an output schema is present, so return-shape gaps are largely covered elsewhere.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the three code categories efficiently. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so it loses a point for leaving useful linkage information out rather than for verbosity.

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 reference tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is close to sufficient — but it omits the one thing an agent actually needs in context: that the returned codes are consumable by gpss_search and gpss_build_url. Without that linkage the agent must guess why this tool exists in the workflow.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not mislead about inputs.

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 names a specific verb (列出/list) and a concrete resource: the three categories of GPSS codes (database codes, search field codes, output field codes). This lets an agent tell it apart from the data-returning siblings like gpss_search and gpss_get, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 this is the reference-lookup tool whose codes feed gpss_search or gpss_build_url, but the description states no conditions, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternatives. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice.

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