list_available_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return format (JSON with date info and comparison) and the behavior of the 'both' option, which adds some transparency. But it doesn't explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, any permissions needed, or behavior when no data exists.

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 structure is clear with labeled sections (Args, Returns, Examples), making it easy to scan. However, the first two lines are semantically redundant ('列出本地/远程可用的日期范围' and '查看本地和远程存储中有哪些日期的数据可用'), which adds unnecessary verbiage.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and a likely output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return format. It lacks guidance on edge cases or fallback behavior, but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke it.

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 description fully explains the source parameter, enumerating the three possible values ('local', 'remote', 'both') and the default, which goes well beyond the bare schema that only has a type and default. This is especially valuable given 0% schema description coverage.

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 lists available date ranges from local/remote storage, using a specific verb ('列出'/'list') and resource ('可用的日期范围'), and the explanation '查看本地和远程存储中有哪些日期的数据可用' reinforces its inventory purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_storage_status by focusing on date availability rather than storage capacity.

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 description provides context about the source parameter (local/remote/both) and gives examples, implying when it might be used (e.g., to check data coverage). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_date_range or get_storage_status, or any exclusions.

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