caixin_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. '列出' clearly implies a read-only listing operation, and the count '19个' sets an expectation of a fixed, finite result set. However, it does not disclose whether the output contains codes, names, or other identifiers, nor whether a live data fetch is involved.

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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the useful count of available indices, making it appropriately concise.

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 list tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the expected scope. The only meaningful gap is the lack of guidance about its relationship to the sibling 'caixin_indices'.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 a specific verb ('列出' / list) and resource ('所有可查的财新指数'), with an explicit count of 19. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling 'caixin_indices', so it falls just short of a 5.

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, and it does not mention the closely related sibling 'caixin_indices'. An agent must infer that this tool is the initial listing step before querying specific indices.

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