list_saves

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool lists local saves and identifies the source directory, which implies a read-only directory scan. However, it does not disclose details such as whether subdirectories are included, what file types are matched, or how results are ordered.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the path given in parentheses. Every part is useful and there is no redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter list operation with an output schema available, this description is fully adequate. It tells the agent what is listed and where, and nothing else is needed 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is minimal semantic burden. The description adds useful context beyond the empty input schema by specifying the exact path being scanned, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope.

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 uses a specific verb (列出/list) and a clear resource (local Victoria 3 saves) and even provides the exact directory path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like load_save, which load rather than list.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool to enumerate local Victoria 3 saves from the standard save-games directory. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as load_save, but the context is unambiguous enough for a 0-parameter listing tool.

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