list_articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool does not perform full-text matching, which is useful, but it fails to mention whether results include article content or just metadata, how pagination works, or any performance implications. For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and key filters. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the meaning. This is exemplary conciseness, even if the brevity sacrifices detail elsewhere.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema) and the need to understand what results are returned, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the output format, pagination semantics, or any expectations for date input. An agent would have to make many assumptions to invoke this tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate for understanding the 7 parameters. It mentions time, source, and title substring, which maps to date_from/date_to, source, and title_contains, but omits limit, offset, and newest_first, and does not explain date formats or default behaviors. This is insufficient to guide correct parameter usage without further inference.

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 clearly states the tool lists articles from a corpus, filtered by time, source, and title substring. It explicitly notes it does not do full-text matching, which differentiates it from the sibling 'search' tool. This is specific enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 phrase '浏览用' (for browsing) and the exclusion of full-text matching provide clear when-to-use guidance. It implies that for full-text search, the 'search' tool should be used instead, which effectively distinguishes it from the sibling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or edge cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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