列出本地文稿

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one behavioral trait — results exclude full body text — but says nothing about pagination, default ordering, result limits, or what happens when all filters are omitted (0 required params).

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the filters first and the scope caveat last, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

No annotations and no output schema means the description must carry safety, defaults and return-shape information — yet it gives a single line. An agent still cannot tell whether the listing is paginated, what fields each entry contains, or how many results to expect, which matters for a 3-param list tool with all parameters optional.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It confirms that kind, novel_id and status are filters, but adds no semantic detail (no explanation of the kind/status values, no statement that they are optional or how they combine). Baseline for low coverage is not met fully, but the filter framing is more than the bare property names.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('列出本地文稿库条目') plus the filter dimensions, so an agent knows it returns library entries rather than content. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the nearby siblings (list_chapters_tomato, list_short_stories_tomato, list_novels_tomato), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Filter usage is implied by naming kind/novel_id/status, and the '(不含正文全文)' clause hints that get_article is the tool for full text. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of how this local listing relates to the *_tomato listing tools.

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