archery_list_instances

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

无注释，描述承担全部透明度责任。它说明了操作是列出映射并按站点分组，返回结构包含site信息。但未明确声明该操作是否只读、是否需要权限、是否有数据一致性保证等。考虑到工具无参数且行为简单，基本行为已披露，但缺少一些常见透明声明（如只读提示）。

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?

描述仅两行，第一句点明功能，第二句解释输出用途和避免的错误。无冗余信息，完全前置负载，每个句子都有价值。

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?

工具无参数，有输出模式（但未提供）。描述已足够完整：说明做什么（列出映射），输出中包含什么（site分组），以及为什么重要（避免歧义）。对于这样一个简单工具，无需更多细节。

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?

工具无参数，根据规则基线为4。描述未涉及参数语义，因为不存在参数，且模式覆盖率为100%（空模式），无需额外解释。

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?

描述明确说明工具功能：列出Archery实例别名映射（短名->真实实例名，按站点分组）。动词"列出"与特定资源"实例别名映射"结合，且与兄弟工具（如archery_query、archery_describe_table）明显区分，后者操作数据或查询其他信息。

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?

描述指出调用方应根据返回的site显式传参以避免歧义错误，隐含了使用场景（在查询实例前先获取映射关系）。但没有明确说明何时不使用或替代品，不过上下文已足够清晰，偏差较小。

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