list_dramas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. '列出' implies a read-only listing, and '我名下' conveys an authorization scope, plus '免费' signals no cost. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, pagination, or access requirements beyond ownership.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then adds a parenthetical list of returned fields and a one-word cost note. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it defines ownership scope, lists the output fields, and signals that the operation is free. No output schema exists, so the parenthetical field list adequately covers return-value expectations.

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 schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful output-context by enumerating the fields that will be returned, which is the only semantic value needed here.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('列出' / list), a resource ('我名下的所有短剧' / all dramas under my account), and names the returned fields (drama_id, title, type, episode count, progress). It clearly distinguishes from singular get_drama and create_drama siblings.

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 phrase '我名下的所有短剧' makes the intended context clear: use it when you need an overview of the user's own dramas. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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