列出资讯来源

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

Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful behavioral detail by disclosing that the tool reports recent run status alongside the source lists. However, it leaves ambiguous what '最近一次运行状态' refers to (last run of which process?) and gives no detail on output ordering or volume. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and compactly enumerates all four returned categories. Every element carries information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by enumerating the four output categories (sources, hot list sources, supported categories, last run status). This is sufficient for a zero-parameter listing tool. Minor gap: it never explicitly frames the tool as the discovery step for the sibling search/aggregate tools, and the run-status item is underspecified.

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 schema is fully covered and no parameter semantics need explanation. Baseline 4 is appropriate; there is nothing the description fails to compensate for.

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?

Description uses a specific verb (列出/list) with a concrete resource: configured news sources, hot list sources, supported categories, and last run status. Enumerating exactly what it exposes clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search, aggregate, or fetch individual news articles rather than listing configuration.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the six siblings. Its plausible role as a discovery/preflight step before calling search_china_news or aggregate_china_news must be inferred by the agent; nothing states 'call this first to see available sources and categories' or identifies conditions that make it unnecessary.

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