list_interpellations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions return type (JSON string) and error handling (Chinese error messages), but does not disclose if this is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Given that it's a listing operation, it is likely safe, but the description does not make this explicit.

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 clear docstring structure with Args and Returns sections. The main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter descriptions slightly overlap with the schema. No redundancy, but could be more compact.

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 has 7 parameters and an output schema (implied), the description adequately covers the return format and error handling. It includes pagination details (page, limit) but does not elaborate on pagination behavior like total count. Overall, it is fairly complete for a list tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by providing examples (e.g., '例：羅智強') and a recommendation for limit ('建議不超過100'). However, these are minor improvements over the schema descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states '列出立法院質詢列表' which means 'List the legislative interpellation list'. It identifies the tool as a listing operation with various filters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_interpellation or get_legislator_interpellations, so it loses some points.

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 parameter details but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_interpellation for a single item or get_legislator_interpellations for a specific legislator). There is no context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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