列出已保存的命盘记录

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns record fields (名字、类型、时间) and implies a read-only enumeration. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or the case of no saved records, which are relevant for a list operation.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and output fields, and the second provides concrete example user utterances. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Given no output schema, the description identifies the returned fields and trigger context, which is helpful. However, it does not describe the result shape (e.g., an array of records) or pagination behavior in detail, leaving some ambiguity for a list tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, documenting all three parameters (page, type, page_size) with descriptions and defaults. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the schema already handles this dimension.

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 uses the specific verb '列出' (list) and clearly identifies the resource '用户已保存的命盘记录' along with the output fields (名字、类型、时间). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_save and record_load, which focus on saving or loading specific records.

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 provides explicit trigger phrases ('看我存过的盘', '我之前保存的八字', '有哪些记录') and states '时调用', giving clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer record_load for retrieving a specific saved record.

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