browse_albums

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return shape, reports that invalid parameters may produce an error, and clearly states that detailed statistics (likes/views/author) are absent, which prevents false expectations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are not critical for a read-only browse tool.

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 longer than average, but the length is justified: it documents four parameters entirely, explains the return contract, and gives three representative examples. The content is organized into clear sections and the most important behavioral limitation is front-loaded before the detailed parameter list.

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 browse/ranking tool with no schema-level parameter documentation and no annotations, this description is complete. It covers all valid parameter values, defaults, pagination page semantics, return fields, error behavior, and the key limitation with routing to the correct sibling tool. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 provides no descriptions and no enums, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so by listing every accepted value for category, time_range, and order_by, plus defaults for all parameters, and by adding practical examples showing meaningful combinations.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination ('浏览、过滤、排行本子') and explains that the tool combines category browsing with ranking. It also distinguishes itself from get_album_detail by noting that detailed statistics are intentionally not included, so an agent can tell which tool to use.

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 gives clear usage context through parameter combinations and examples, and explicitly routes to get_album_detail() when detailed statistics are needed. It does not explicitly contrast with search_album, but the browse/filter/rank framing makes the intended use clear enough.

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