list_gazette_agendas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (JSON string) and error behavior (Chinese error message string), but does not mention key behavioral aspects such as how filters combine, pagination defaults (page=1, limit=20, max 100) are already in schema, or that output_fields customizes the result set. The Raises section adds minimal transparency about error handling, but the overall behavior remains opaque.

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 concise and follows a standard docstring structure (Args, Returns, Raises), front-loading the action in the first line. However, the Args list is redundant with the input schema, which slightly detracts from efficiency, but it's not bloated and each section is brief.

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 9-parameter filterable list tool, the description lacks context on how filters combine, what happens when no filters are provided, and what fields are available for output_fields. It also doesn't clarify the relationship with sibling tools like get_gazette_agenda. Even though an output schema is said to exist, the description itself doesn't explain the return structure beyond 'JSON format', making it incomplete for effective use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section repeats the exact schema parameter descriptions (e.g., gazette_id: 公報編號，例：1137701), adding no new meaning. Since the schema already documents all parameters with examples, the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics like parameter interdependencies or value constraints.

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 begins with '列出公報目錄列表' (List gazette agenda list), clearly stating the verb (list) and resource (gazette agendas). The Args section further implies a filterable list interface, but the core purpose is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like get_gazette_agenda, so it stays slightly below a 5.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It doesn't mention that get_gazette_agenda should be used for a single agenda, or how this list function relates to list_gazettes. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and parameter list.

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