list_html

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: no cloud access, local-only scope, the distinction between current operable localPaths and historical sourcePaths, and the local-directory prerequisite. This is substantive behavioral context with no contradiction.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds a distinct and useful constraint or clarification. There is no redundant wording.

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 read-only paginated list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers purpose, scope, prerequisites, exclusions, and important output field semantics. The absence of an output schema is adequately compensated by the field-level clarifications.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, and lifecycle are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning pagination, which the schema already covers.

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 uses a specific verb ('分页列出') and resource ('当前环境本地已知站点及最近确认状态'), and explicitly states the tool is not a full cloud-site list. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like hosting_status or publish_html.

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?

It provides clear context for local-only listing, a prerequisite ('要求启用本地目录'), and when-not guidance ('不访问云端核验，不是全云端站点清单'). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use when cloud verification or a full cloud list is needed.

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