list_faq_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a return format (id, category, question), which is useful. However, it does not clarify that the operation is read-only, possible absence of authentication, or any pagination/sorting behavior. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 one sentence plus a brief returns line. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes value, making it concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (no parameters, simple list operation) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides enough context: it states the purpose and the expected shape of the return. It does not need to elaborate further, as the output schema covers the detailed return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per the guidelines, the baseline is 4 for 0 params. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it also does not explicitly confirm 'no parameters' to the user, so it does not earn a 5.

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's function: listing all topics of the parents' FAQ bank. The verb '列出' (list) and resource '全部主题' (all topics) are specific, and the purpose '便于引导家长提问' adds context. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_faq, which searches rather than lists.

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 implies a clear use case: when you need to guide parents by showing available FAQ topics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose provides enough context to know when to use it. Since no sibling is mentioned, it stops short of a 5.

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