get_pool_names

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the output (key→display name mapping) but does not mention whether it's read-only, performance characteristics, error handling, or that it returns all pools. The description is too minimal for full transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and outcome, making it quick to parse.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and is simple, the description provides the core information (mapping retrieval). It explains the output format adequately. Slight deduction for not stating scope (e.g., 'all pools') but overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the description need not add param details. However, it could explain the return structure more explicitly (e.g., 'returns a dictionary') but the current description 'pool key → display name' implies a mapping sufficiently. Baseline 4 reduced to 3 due to lack of extra 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a mapping from pool key to display name, using a specific verb (获取) and resource (存储池名称映射). It is distinct from sibling tools which are file operations, so no ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool's purpose is straightforward, the description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or context for invocation, leaving the agent without decision support.

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