vod_list_submitted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: read-only, bounded local ledger of 200 entries, newest-first ordering, and that it is not the authoritative source. It stops short of stating staleness/eviction consequences explicitly (that older entries fall off the cap) or the fields returned per record.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then scope/ordering, then the authoritative-source caveat and use case. Dense with semicolons and an unexplained shorthand ('VOD-VOI') costs it a point, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool the description is adequate on scope and safety, but with no output schema the agent is never told what a returned entry contains (fields, status values), which matters for the stated reconciliation use case. The parameter and return shape are the missing pieces.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'limit' parameter is never documented in the description; the only signal is '最新在前', which implies limit selects the most recent N. It does not reconcile the schema max of 100 with the stated 200-entry ledger cap or explain the default of 20, so meaning added beyond the schema is thin.

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 ('查询本机已提交的声音') plus an explicit read-only qualifier, and scopes it to the local ledger, which cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling vod_submit_voices. The parenthetical '(只读)' reinforces the operation type without ambiguity.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: this is the reconciliation source for answering end-user progress questions, while cross-machine/authoritative lookups are routed elsewhere ('跨机/权威查询随引擎端点'). It names the alternative path but does not spell out a hard exclusion rule or preconditions (e.g. what to do if the entry is not in the local 200-cap ledger).

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