anjian_list_authorized_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does state this is a read-only operation ('只读列出') and that it doesn't access websites, which provides useful safety-relevant behavioral disclosure. However, it doesn't describe what the returned data looks like, pagination, or error behavior. The read-only nature is the key behavioral trait and it is disclosed.

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 Chinese sentence that packs in the purpose (read-only listing), the scope (authorized targets), the prerequisite (one-time local confirmation), and the safety property (no website access). Zero waste, every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, no output schema), and the description covers the essential purpose and safety profile. However, with no output schema and no annotations, some description of what the return value looks like (a list of targets, their format) would improve completeness. The safety-critical 'no website access' detail is a strong disclosure, but the overall picture is lean for a security-oriented tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic burden to document. The description adds value by explaining what is being listed (targets confirmed through one-time local terminal confirmation). With 0 params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description compensates for the absence of any parameter-driven semantics.

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 a specific action: read-only listing of authorized assessment targets that have been confirmed via one-time local terminal confirmation. It explicitly notes no website access. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like anjian_list_assessments, though the 'targets' vs 'assessments' distinction is somewhat implicit.

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 conveys the tool lists authorized targets, implying it should be used before running assessments to see pre-approved targets. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., anjian_list_assessments for completed assessments). The 'single confirmation' and 'no website access' give some context but not explicit when/when-not guidance.

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