list_all_experiences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the result set is limited to approved records and returns titles rather than full records, plus it is paginated. It says nothing about auth requirements, ordering, or rate limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter block; there is no filler. The parameter lines partially duplicate schema defaults, which is the only minor waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple two-parameter read-only list with no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, pagination, and both parameters adequately; only ordering and auth context are absent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the limit maximum (200) beyond the schema default and restates both defaults, but 'offset' is only glossed as '偏移量（默认 0）', which adds nothing over the parameter name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (paginated list of experience-library records) and narrows the scope to approved records and titles only, which implicitly separates it from list_pending_experiences, list_deleted_experiences, and search_experience. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer 'use this to enumerate all approved entries' versus search_experience for filtering, but the description never states when to prefer this over search_experience or the pending/deleted listers. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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