list_eval_sets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does it reasonably well: it indicates a read-only scan, the YAML file filter, and the derived attribute '是否可 mock 离线跑' (whether it can be mock-run offline). It does not cover error behavior or whether subdirectories are scanned recursively, but for a simple listing tool this is a solid disclosure.

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 a single compact Chinese sentence that front-loads the action and then immediately enumerates the returned information: name, case count, and mock-offline capability. There is no filler, no repeated schema trivia, and every clause earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return-value structure in depth. It covers what files are scanned and what fields are returned, while the output schema handles detailed return semantics. The lack of explicit guidance about recursive scanning and directory-missing errors prevents a top score.

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 provides only a 'directory' field with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying that the directory is the folder to scan for YAML eval-set files, which gives the single parameter meaningful role context. It omits path-format details, but the parameter is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 opens with the verb '扫描' (scan), names the resource '评测集' (eval sets), and specifies the relevant file pattern '*.yaml/*.yml', followed by the return fields. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like run_eval, compare_runs, export_review, and import_review, which operate on eval sets rather than listing them.

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 this is a discovery/pre-flight tool by describing scanning and reporting mock-offline capability, but it never explicitly states when to use it instead of siblings such as run_eval or compare_runs. There are no when-not conditions or alternative-referencing cues, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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