research_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that archived/deleted items are excluded unless status is overridden, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or return shape.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the enumerated values. Nothing is padded.

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 trivial one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description tells an agent everything needed to call it. Only minor gaps (ordering, pagination) remain and are low-risk for this tool type.

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%, but the single parameter's enum and default are already self-documenting in the schema. The description merely restates the same four values and the same default, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the structured data.

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 and resource (列出研究 / list research) and specifies the default scope (only active items). It does not distinguish this from siblings like research_get or research_find_nodes, so an agent must infer the role from the name alone.

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 mention of the active-only default implies when you'd change status, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. use research_get for a single item). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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