List Combos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it reveals almost nothing: no read-only indication, no mention of side effects, pagination, or return shape. The phrase '合并 selection' hints at merging but never states what is merged or what the result contains.

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?

It is brief, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The single cryptic line is not front-loaded around a clear action and reads as an internal note rather than agent-facing documentation.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should explain purpose, usage, and behavior. It omits all of these, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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% for the single 'stack' parameter, which carries a null default and no documented meaning. The description never mentions 'stack' or any parameter, so it does nothing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('多端菜单（L1/L2 地基）：units/edges + 合并 selection（经桥 list-combos）') restates the tool name in dense jargon rather than stating a clear verb+resource. An agent cannot tell what a 'combo' is or what is actually returned, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like list_templates or get_combo_params.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus the five sibling tools (list_templates, generate_single, get_combo_params, generate_multi, get_template_params). The only reference, '经桥 list-combos', is self-referential and provides no selection guidance.

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