list_watchlists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: it lists what states are surfaced and explicitly bounds the tool with 不读取聊天, though it says nothing about ordering or completeness of the watchlist set.

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?

A single well-structured sentence, front-loaded with the verb and semicolon-delimited; each clause adds content. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough: what is listed and what is excluded. It could say more about the shape/ordering of results, but the picture is adequately 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of returned facets is a mild bonus but not a substitute for the absent output schema.

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 (列出/list) and resource (本机保存的关注列表/watchlists) and even enumerates the returned facets (暂停状态, 待确认批次). It is clearly a listing tool, distinct from configure/poll/ack siblings, though it doesn't name a specific alternative to route away from.

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 clause 不读取聊天 is a useful negative boundary, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to the sibling watchlist tools (configure_watchlist, poll_watchlist, read_watchlist_batch). Usage is only implied by the listing verb.

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