list_anchors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds the 2000-item limit, which is useful, but does not mention other behaviors like pagination, ordering, or rate limits. The added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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 well-structured with a header, parameter list, return info, and a hint. It is concise and front-loaded, though the emoji header adds little value. Overall efficient and easy to parse.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return fields and a limitation (2000 max). It covers the main aspects, though it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites. Contextually complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the description repeats similar information with examples. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as illustrating possible values for status. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '获取基站列表' (get anchor list) and the filtering options, identifying the resource (anchors) and action (list). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_maps or list_areas, which serve different resources.

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 listing anchors with optional filters and hints at a 2000-item limit, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creation, update, delete tools exist but not mentioned). Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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