pta_list_exams

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful behavioral distinction that only_active=True returns only unfinished sets while False returns all visible sets, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result size beyond limit.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by two terse parameter notes; no filler. The embedded 'Args:' block is slightly awkward for a prose description but costs almost nothing in length.

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 two-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both parameters, and the reason the caller needs the result. What an agent would still miss is the shape of the returned items (fields besides exam_id) and total-count/pagination behavior.

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. It explains only_active's effect well (not just the default but what each value returns) and glosses limit as 条数上限, but omits the default of 20 and any pagination/cursor behavior, leaving half the parameter semantics thin.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (列出练习/考试) and states the concrete payoff: the exam_id needed for submission, which links it to submit_answers. It does not explicitly contrast itself with pull_exam_set, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 link to submission (给出提交时要用的 exam_id) implies this is a discovery step before submit_answers, and the only_active default is stated. However, it never says when to prefer pull_exam_set over this tool, nor any prerequisites such as login (pta_login is a sibling).

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