pkulaw_list_upstream_tools

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: credential dependency with an explicit failure mode, and pagination support. It still omits return shape details beyond 'tool names and schemas' and any rate-limit/caching behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact clauses ordered by importance: what it reads, the auth caveat, then pagination. No repetition, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, authentication requirement, failure mode, and pagination. The remaining gap is the missing explicit hand-off to pkulaw_call_upstream_tool, which the agent must infer from the names.

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 single input parameter 'cursor' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention pagination, but names 'nextCursor' (an output field) rather than the input 'cursor', leaving the agent to infer that the returned nextCursor feeds back into the cursor argument.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: read the official aggregated MCP's real tool names and schemas using this instance's own Pkulaw credentials. The verb '读取'(list/read) is distinguishable from the sibling pkulaw_call_upstream_tool (invoke), though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear precondition (must be authenticated; fails without credentials; not an anonymous public service), which implies when it is usable. However, it never states the workflow relationship to pkulaw_call_upstream_tool (e.g. 'use this first to discover names, then invoke them') or any when-not condition.

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