list_committees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the return value is a JSON-formatted string and that exceptions yield Chinese error messages, but it omits details about pagination behavior, empty results, sorting, or how filters interact.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by concise Args, Returns, and Raises sections. No redundant filler is present, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 list endpoint with all-optional parameters, the description covers every parameter, the return format, and the error behavior. It would be more complete if it mentioned pagination semantics or distinctions from sibling tools, but the existing structure is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% and the Args section largely mirrors the schema descriptions verbatim, including the '建議不超過100' note for limit. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific verb '列出' (list) and clearly names the resource '委員會列表', so the tool's basic purpose is unambiguous. It is implicit but not explicitly stated that this is the plural listing counterpart to get_committee, which prevents full differentiation from siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_committee or get_committee_meets. The Args section only documents parameters; it does not explain selection context, filtering combinations, or when not to use this endpoint.

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