yuque_web_list_repos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cookie-based auth mechanism, that no membership is required, the underlying endpoint (GET /api/books), and the richness of the returned permission fields. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, but the auth and permission prerequisites are the important disclosure here.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its key differentiator, then packed with the return-field and auth details. The doc pointer at the end is useful. Slightly terse/fragmented phrasing keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully names the returned fields (abilities, cover_color, scene) and permission flags. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and auth disclosure, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination behavior is left implicit.

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 100%, so all four parameters (raw, limit, offset, user_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or defaults, which is acceptable but not enriching — baseline 3.

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 ('List repos for current user') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling yuque_list_repos by noting it returns richer fields (abilities, cover_color, scene). An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 comparison to 'v2 list_repos' and the note 'No membership required' gives clear context for when this variant is preferable, but it never states an explicit when-not or a hard selection rule. Usage is strongly implied rather than prescribed.

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