catalog_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: this tool returns summaries, not full documents, and full content is intentionally delegated to document_read. Pagination or cursor behavior is not disclosed, but this is less critical for a read-only lookup.

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 sentence with no filler. The summary-vs-body distinction is front-loaded and immediately actionable, though the terseness leaves some parameter semantics unaddressed.

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?

The description adequately conveys the main purpose and the document_read handoff, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, with five undeclared parameters and zero schema descriptions, the meaning of scope, cursor, and limit remains unclear for an agent that needs to invoke the tool beyond defaults.

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 clarifies that 'query' maps to name and that 'kind' is a filter, but it leaves limit, cursor, and scope unexplained, even though these affect result size, pagination, and filtering scope.

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 states a specific action ('查询') and resource ('声明摘要'), with clear filtering axes: name and kind. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from catalog siblings like catalog_graph or catalog_effective, though it does separate itself from document_read.

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 explicitly routes full-body reading to document_read ('正文通过 document_read 读取'), giving the agent a clear condition for using an alternative. It does not mention when to prefer catalog_list over other catalog-related siblings, but the provided handoff is useful.

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