list_parameter_sets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the scoping fact that results come from the local MCP working directory and are 'offline' (not device-backed), which is modest but real added context. Return shape is deferred to the existing output schema, so no further disclosure is needed.

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 short sentence with no padding, leading with the verb and resource. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With no parameters, full annotation coverage, and a dedicated output schema, the description only needs to establish what is listed and where. It does that, but stops short of relating the result set to the sibling catalogs/snapshots, which is the one thing an agent might still hesitate over.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('列出' / list) and a specific resource ('离线参数集' / offline parameter sets) with an explicit scope ('MCP 工作目录中'). That scope helps distinguish it from device-side siblings such as list_device_parameter_snapshots and list_parameter_catalogs, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any named alternative among the many list/get_* siblings (get_parameter_set, list_parameter_catalogs, list_device_parameter_snapshots). The 'offline parameter sets in the MCP working directory' scope implies the usage context, so guidance is present only by inference.

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