列出作品分类 / 标签选项

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the read-only HTTP nature and the fact that the result is a set of selectable values, but says nothing about authentication prerequisites, caching/freshness, failure modes, or result shape. Read-only disclosure is real value, but for an annotation-free tool more is expected.

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 front-loaded sentence stating what is read, its read-only nature, and why it exists. Every clause earns its place; no padding.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers what is fetched and its downstream purpose, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Return-shape details are absent but arguably unnecessary for this simple case.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed to fetch the option lists.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: reading Qimao backend book categories and tag options, explicitly quoted as the set of selectable values. This distinguishes it from list_books_qimao (existing works) and reasonably from list_genres (genre taxonomy only), though the relationship to list_genres is left implicit.

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?

States clear usage context: '供建书 / 改作品信息时选值' pins it to the create_book_qimao / update_book_info_qimao workflow. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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