list_url_blacklist

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds a minor UI context (tab location) but does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether both black and white entries are returned or how pagination works. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with a parenthetical tab reference. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no unnecessary words.

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 with no parameters and has an output schema, so a minimal description is acceptable. However, the description says '黑白名单' (black/white list) while the tool name says 'blacklist', creating ambiguity about the exact scope. This gap in clarity affects completeness.

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 tool has no parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 tool lists the URL black/white list with a specific verb ('列出' = list) and resource ('网址黑白名单' = URL black/white list). It is distinguishable from related siblings like list_domain_blacklist, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself.

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 only a UI tab reference ('tab: 网址黑白名单') and no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_domain_blacklist or delete_url_blacklist. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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