list_available_dates

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool reads local/remote storage, can compare both, and returns JSON date lists, which is adequate for a non-destructive listing tool. However, it does not mention date format, empty-result behavior, or network/error implications.

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 well structured with summary, Args, Returns, and Examples sections, making it easy to scan. There is minor redundancy between '列出本地/远程可用的日期范围' and '查看本地和远程存储中有哪些日期的数据可用', but no wasteful content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no required fields, the description covers purpose, source values, return shape, and examples; an output schema also exists. It could add exact date range format or behavior when no data is available, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 only says source is a string with default 'both' and has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by enumerating valid values local/remote/both, stating the default, and giving examples. There is no ambiguity about how to use the only parameter.

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 first line names a specific operation (列出) and resource (local/remote available date ranges), and the description expands on distinct scopes. It stands apart from siblings like get_news_by_date or resolve_date_range because it focuses on availability of dates in storage.

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 explains how to use the source parameter and what each value does, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings such as resolve_date_range or get_news_by_date. Usage is implied through '查看本地和远程存储中有哪些日期的数据可用', but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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