list_obstacles

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds semantic context (permanent terrain, trustworthy) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe potential side effects, performance, or return format. The word 'list' implies a read operation, but more detail would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and scope, and it adds a brief parenthetical clarification. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential information: it tells what is listed (all obstacle memory cells) and adds helpful clarification. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the return type, but the description is sufficient for 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what kind=OBSTACLE means, which is not captured in the schema. Since there are no parameters to document, this is sufficient.

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 ('列出所有' = list all) and the resource (kind=OBSTACLE memory cells), and it further clarifies the meaning of OBSTACLE as 'permanent terrain, trustworthy.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resources and get_all_cells, which likely handle other cell types or broader scopes.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to retrieve obstacle cells. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_all_cells for a broader query, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in higher-scoring examples.

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