list_certified_groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description does add one genuine behavioral detail beyond annotations: the certification status is fetched live ('向玄上实时查'), telling the agent the data is not stale/cached. It stops short of describing cost, latency, or batching behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and packs the three returned fields without filler. It is efficient, though the run-on parenthetical structure makes it slightly harder to parse than a clearly punctuated list of returned fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the usage context: when an agent should call this versus canvas_status, and whether project is required (schema covers that). Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter (project) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself pointing the agent to list_projects for lookup. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (认证分组) and enumerates the content it surfaces: per-asset certification status and whether each asset is on the canvas. However, it is a noun phrase fragment with no explicit verb, and it does not differentiate itself from the sibling canvas_status, which plausibly reports overlapping canvas state. An agent can guess the data returned but not cleanly why this tool exists beside canvas_status.

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 when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative sibling (e.g. canvas_status or list_projects). The only routing hint comes from the schema parameter description ('用 list_projects 查'), not the tool description itself.

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