get_user_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds a behavioral constraint: uid is required when no cookie is available. This provides some context beyond the annotations, but does not cover other traits like authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, 3 required, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain pagination (count, start) or the category parameter, nor does it describe the response format. Users need to infer or guess return structure.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description clarifies that 'status' corresponds to the Chinese terms '想看/在看/看过' and that 'uid' is needed without cookie. However, it does not explain 'count', 'start', or 'category' beyond their enum values. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description fails to provide full semantic context for all parameters.

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 retrieves a user's collection list with specific statuses (想看/在看/看过). It uses a specific verb '获取' and resource '用户收藏列表'. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_user_doulist, the scope is distinct enough.

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 provides a conditional note about passing uid when no cookie is present, but it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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