list_samples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function (querying samples) without mentioning return format, authentication needs, pagination, or any side effects. This leaves a significant gap for a read operation, especially with no output schema.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds useful contextual information without waste.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the clear purpose, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the return structure or limitations, so an agent may need additional context to fully interpret the result.

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 schema already documents the single parameter categoryId with a description ('分类 ID'), and the schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond referencing 'specified category', so it earns the baseline score for schema-covered parameters.

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 action (查询/query) and resource (样品列表/sample list) with a specific scope (指定分类/under specified category). The added context about template creation further clarifies its role, making it distinct from other list tools like list_categories.

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 a concrete usage scenario (创建模板时/when creating a template) that implies when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' level.

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