sbwsz

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns data sorted by release date in descending order, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format, which are critical for a data-fetching tool with no output schema.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that states the action, resource, and sorting behavior without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the complexity (a data-fetching tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains what data is returned and the sorting order but omits details on response structure, error handling, or limitations, which are essential for the agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by focusing on the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 verb ('返回' meaning 'return') and resource ('所有MTG卡牌系列的完整数据' meaning 'complete data of all MTG card sets'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_set' or 'get_set_cards', which appear to be related to MTG sets but likely serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_set' (which might fetch a single set) or 'get_set_cards' (which might fetch cards within a set), leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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