list-standards

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 discloses that the tool lists and filters, but it does not mention return format, error handling, or whether the filter is case-sensitive or exact match. For a simple read-only list, the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the optional filter. No wasted 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention the output structure or that the list includes both categories and documents, but the current description is adequate for a straightforward browsing action.

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 schema already describes the 'category' parameter with allowed values (frontend, backend, custom), giving 100% coverage. The description only says '可按分类过滤' without adding new detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 all available standards categories and documents ('列出所有可用的开发规范分类和文档') and mentions filtering by category. This distinguishes it from siblings like get-standard-docs (which retrieves specific docs) and resolve-standard-id (which resolves IDs).

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 implies usage: it's for listing available standards with optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over get-standard-docs or resolve-standard-id. No exclusions are mentioned.

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