列出人物画像

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

The description states the result is a summary ('摘要') rather than full profiles, which is meaningful behavioral context. The ordering behavior (reverse chronological by update time) is also disclosed. With readOnlyHint=true already in annotations, the safety profile is covered, and the description adds the summary-vs-full disclosure that annotations don't provide.

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?

Two crisp sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering. The alternative tool reference is packed into one clause. Zero wasted words, perfectly concise.

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?

This is a simple paginated list with an output schema present, so the return structure is already documented. readOnlyHint is annotated. Two trivial params are self-documenting. The description fully covers purpose, ordering, and the sibling distinction. There's nothing meaningful left undisclosed for a read-only list tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but both parameters (limit, offset) are standard pagination parameters whose meaning is self-evident from their names and numeric defaults. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but the parameters are low-complexity (integer limit/offset with defaults). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the trivial parameter semantics.

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?

Clearly states the verb (list), resource (profiles), scope (all), and ordering (most recent update first). Explicitly distinguishes from search_profiles, which handles keyword retrieval. The Chinese title '列出人物画像' reinforces the resource and action.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('用于浏览', for browsing) and explicitly names the alternative for keyword searching ('按关键词检索请用 search_profiles'). This is a clear when-to-use with a named alternative, exactly matching the high standard.

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