List public experience modules

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 implies a read operation via '展示' but does not explicitly state read-only safety, side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The inclusion of field names is return-value context, not behavioral trait disclosure.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently lists the fields returned. It avoids boilerplate or redundancy, though it could be slightly tighter by omitting some field enumerations if they were documented elsewhere.

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 with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage or explain how the 'local registry' scope relates to the rest of the public experience workflow. An agent lacks enough context to invoke it confidently with correct parameters.

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% for three parameters, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain what 'category', 'max_results', or 'require_trusted_signature' do, their defaults, or their allowed values. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema 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?

States a specific verb ('展示' / display) and resource ('公开体验模块' / public experience modules), and details the returned fields (version, permissions, risk, publisher, signature status). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like discover_experiences or list_public_reports, so an agent cannot tell when to choose this over alternatives without further 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?

Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description only says what it lists, not under what conditions an agent should select it versus discover_experiences or other listing tools.

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