anjian_list_assessments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It's a listing/read operation, but this is never explicitly stated as safe/non-destructive. It doesn't disclose what '最近运行编号' refers to in detail, whether output is sorted, or what constitutes 'recent'. Zero annotation coverage and minimal behavioral context makes this under-specified.

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 that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text. However, given the low informational content, it could profitably use additional space to clarify usage context and output details.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so one might argue the description is sufficient. However, the description doesn't explain what the returned data looks like (assessment names, run IDs, timestamps), what '最近运行编号' metadata means, or how it relates to anjian_get_assessment for follow-up retrieval. A list tool's value depends on what one does with the results, which is unstated.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema carries no parameter burden. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adequately conveys that no input is needed to retrieve the list.

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 states the tool lists local assessments and recent run numbers ('列出本机安鉴台评估及最近运行编号'). The verb is clear (list) and the resource is specified (assessments, recent runs). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling 'anjian_get_assessment' which retrieves a single assessment, so the differentiation burden is only partially met.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings there are several related tools (anjian_get_assessment, anjian_create_assessment, anjian_run_assessment), but the description doesn't clarify when listing is the right choice. The context 'local' implies it's about local-only data, which is a mild usage clue but not explicit.

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