列出投递记录

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

The annotations already declare that this is a safe read-only call (readOnlyHint=true) and that it touches open-world data (openWorldHint=true). Since there is no output schema, the description's preview of the returned record shape (stage, status, applied time, notes) is genuinely additive. However, it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result-size behavior, and the limit maximum of 200 is left to the schema alone.

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?

It is a single, dense sentence with no filler, and the record shape is front-loaded immediately after the tool purpose. Every clause adds information.

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 annotations cover safety, and all parameters are documented in full in the schema. The description also takes over the return-value burden, because no output schema exists. That leaves only two gaps: default ordering and how to page, but the cursor parameter's schema text ("上一页返回的 next_cursor") partly covers the latter.

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 100%: limit, scope with an enum and defaults, cursor, and keyword are all documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level meaning. The baseline score of 3 is therefore appropriate, because the burden lies entirely with the schema.

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 definition gives a specific verb and resource ("列出", with the title 列出投递记录) and adds the record granularity (one record = one position) plus the fields each record carries. That makes it clearly a listing operation over applications. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_application or the other list_* siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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 definition gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_application or the other list_* tools; the distinction is only implied by the tool names. Nothing is said about when to choose scope=active versus archived, or when pagination by cursor is needed. Since every suggestion appears only in the schema, the description adds no routing value.

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