getFavoriteListByUserId

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the basic operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, the maximum limit of 100, return format, authentication requirements, or any potential side effects, making it insufficient for a read operation.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify that the favorite list can contain both maps and models, how pagination works, or what the return structure is. For a list retrieval tool with four required parameters, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (limit, offset, userId, contentType) documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool retrieves a user's favorite list on the Shendao platform using a user ID. It uses a specific verb (获取) and resource (收藏列表), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like getMapListByUserId and getModelListByUserId which focus on user's published content rather than favorites.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or competing sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selecting it appropriately.

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