selectCategoryTreeList

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tree is flattened but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as access permissions, rate limits, or how the tree is constructed. For a query tool, more detail on the nature of the returned data would be helpful.

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 concise with two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide a brief usage note. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and output usage. However, it does not specify the exact shape of the output (e.g., fields like id, level, name) which would be useful for the agent to integrate the result.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. With 100% schema coverage (trivially), the description adds no further meaning, but this is acceptable.

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 clearly states the action ('查询' meaning query) and resource ('SOP 分类树' meaning SOP category tree) and specifies that the output is flattened. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like saveCategory or querySopList, though no explicit differentiation is given.

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 provides some usage guidance: when displaying to users, only show level and category name, and that Work Buddy can use the id from results as esopCategoryId. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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