list_published

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the important filter '成功发布的' (successfully published) and specifies paginated listing, which goes beyond annotations. It doesn't mention ordering or rate limits, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no fluff. The phrase '成功发布的' and '分页' convey the essential scping and pagination immediately.

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?

The tool is simple: two optional integer parameters, output schema exists, annotations cover safety. The description gives the purpose, resource filter, and pagination method; nothing critical is missing for a read-only list operation.

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 0%. The description says '分页' (paginated), which implies count and offset are paging controls, but it doesn't explain their exact semantics, bounds, or default behavior. The parameter names and defaults in the schema carry most of the meaning, so the description adds only minimal value.

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?

Clear verb 'list' + resource 'successfully published articles' + pagination; it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_drafts (drafts) and get_published_article (single article).

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?

States '用于无状态对账' (used for stateless reconciliation), providing a concrete use case for paginated enumeration. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource and purpose give clear context.

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