list_site_actions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses almost nothing: no mention of side effects (presumably a read-only list operation), no notification about what '固化' (solidified) means in behavioral terms, no discussion of error conditions or output format. The description is opaque about what happens on invocation.

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?

The description is extremely short (one line), which is concise. However, it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise — it trades meaning for brevity. Short but opaque. The phrasing '已固化的站点函数 + 载入失败的文件' is cryptic and doesn't earn its place because it fails to convey clear meaning.

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 tool whose purpose appears to be diagnostic (listing registered site functions and load failures), the description is far too thin. With no output schema and no annotations, the description alone must explain what the listing looks like, what constitutes a site function, and what '固化' (solidified) means operationally. It provides none of this.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies. The description gives no parameter context, but with no params, no additional semantic value is needed.

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 is a tautology that essentially restates the name — '已固化的站点函数 + 载入失败的文件' (solidified site functions + files that failed to load). It doesn't clarify what 'site actions' actually are, what listing them accomplishes, or what the return value represents. The verb 'list' implies enumeration, but the resource being enumerated is vague and jargon-heavy.

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 any of the ~48 sibling tools. There's no mention of context in which this would be useful (e.g., debugging site helper registration, checking loaded site functions). The description lacks any how-when-when-not framing.

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