分类列表

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description must add something beyond that — return shape, ordering, pagination, or scope. It adds nothing: no indication of what a '分类文档' contains, whether results are paginated, or how they are sorted.

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 short sentence with no padding, so it is certainly concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — the one sentence carries almost no actionable content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place that could explain what a caller receives, and it does not. For a simple 0-param read tool the annotations cover the safety profile, but the return value and the meaning of '自定义分类文档' remain unexplained.

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; the empty schema is self-explanatory and the baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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 '读取自定义分类文档' largely restates the name/title (cats.list / 分类列表) without committing to a specific operation shape; '文档' (documents) is ambiguous for a tool whose name implies listing categories, so an agent cannot be sure whether it returns a list, a document set, or something else.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives are given. The sibling set contains many parallel list tools (todo.list, recurring.list, purchase.list, expense.list, project.list, phase.list) plus cats.update, yet the description does nothing to route the agent between cats.list and cats.update or between categories and other list tools.

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