读取账号资产

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds that pagination is server-side and the envelope is preserved, which is genuinely useful for interpreting the response. It does not mention default page size, total counts, or ordering, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.

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 filler; the pagination constraint is front-loaded alongside the resource. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why parameter meaning is under-specified.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is parameter-level detail for a 3-parameter paging tool with zero schema descriptions. Adequate but with a clear gap an agent would notice when deciding page values.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for page, category and page_size. It partially compensates by naming the two category values (images/videos), but says nothing about page numbering, the default page_size of 20, valid ranges, or what happens on out-of-range pages. Two of three parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 verb and resource in Chinese: paginated reading of account-level image or video assets, plus the note that server-side pagination structure is preserved. An agent can distinguish this from node/project listing siblings such as pavo_list_projects or pavo_list_nodes. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for artifact retrieval, so it stops short of 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?

Usage is only implied: 'read account assets' suggests browsing rather than targeted lookup, and the images/videos mention hints at filtering. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named even though pavo_list_artifacts and pavo_script_get_assets sit in the sibling set.

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