list_student_skills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word '列出' (list) makes the read-only nature obvious and the risk is minimal, and the total count (35) hints at the result size; however, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether an invalid category errors or returns empty.

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 first line front-loads purpose and scope; the parameter block is structured as a bulleted value list that is easy to scan. Slightly long for one parameter, but every enumerated value carries real disambiguation value.

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 shape need not be described. For a single-optional-parameter enumeration tool, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior (unknown category, empty results) is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 0% — the input schema defines `category` only as a bare nullable string with no enum or description. The description fully compensates by enumerating all nine valid values with concrete Chinese examples for each (e.g., 'challenge cup / internet+ / red-tour tracks' for competition), which is exactly what the schema omits.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: '列出所有支持的高校学生申报书与申请材料赛道（共 35 个）' — an enumeration of supported student application/declaration tracks, with the count given. It is clearly distinguishable from detail-oriented siblings like get_skill_info or get_skill_requirements, though it never names them explicitly.

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 verb 'list' implies usage as a discovery/entry point, and the optional filter suggests it can be used to narrow before routing. But there is no explicit 'use this when…' guidance, no mention of when to prefer route_student_skill or get_skill_info instead, and no prerequisites stated.

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