list_departments

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

The description discloses one important behavioral trait: the response uses a non-standard structure ('{"departments": [...]}' instead of the typical 'data' field). However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. This partial disclosure provides some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 composed of three concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the function, providing the API reference, and noting the return structure caveat. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description adds valuable context about the non-standard return format. It could further explain the tree hierarchy or pagination, but for a basic list tool, it covers the essential points. The output schema presumably handles remaining details.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description correctly has no parameter documentation. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add anything beyond what the empty schema already provides.

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 explicitly states '查询部门列表（树形组织架构）' which translates to 'query department list (tree organizational structure)'. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose of listing departments in a hierarchical tree format. The inclusion of the specific API endpoint (GET /departments v1) further solidifies its function, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

While the description accurately describes what the tool does, it lacks explicit guidance on when or when not to use it. There are no sibling department tools, so alternatives are absent, but no prerequisites or context for usage are provided. The agent must infer usage from the tool's name and purpose, which is adequate but not proactive.

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