list_markers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by declaring the implicit default value of category, and the read-only nature is inferable from '列出'. However, it says nothing about auth needs, result size, or pagination, which remains a gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the default, then the narrowing option. Zero wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are addressed with defaults and an example. Only the missing enumeration of accepted values and any usage boundaries keep it from being fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents the default for category ('默认返回所有时态关键词') and gives a concrete usage example for tense ('tense="现在完成时"'). It still omits the full set of valid tense values, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb + resource ('列出标志词/关键词') plus the traceability angle ('可溯源到讲次'), which clarifies what the listed markers link back to. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_knowledge_point or list_lectures, though it never names an alternative to differentiate against.

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?

It discloses the default behavior (returns all tense keywords with category="时态") and how to narrow results via tense, which implies usage. But it never states when to prefer this over search_knowledge_points or find_by_relation, nor any exclusion.

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