List Url Keywords

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation. The description adds only a UI tab reference and does not disclose scope, pagination, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what the annotations provide. No contradiction, but very little added 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 concise, front-loaded phrase with no filler. The parenthetical tab label is marginally useful but slightly cryptic; overall the description is efficient for such a simple tool.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description needs only to identify the resource. It does that, but omits scope, sibling distinction, and the meaning of 'URL keyword replacement', leaving it minimally adequate rather than fully complete for choosing among many URL-related list tools.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 ('列出'/list) and resource ('URL 关键字替换' / URL keyword replacement). It distinguishes from many sibling list_url_* tools by resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like list_url_params_replace or list_url_redirects, and does not define what a keyword replacement is.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The parenthetical 'tab: 关键字替换' indicates UI location rather than usage guidance. An agent must infer that this tool is for inspecting URL keyword replacement rules.

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