signals.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal a key behavioral trait—the 5-point/2-occurrence threshold—and the '列出' verb indicates a read-style listing operation. However, it does not clarify whether the threshold filters results, whether the operation is truly read-only, or how only_banned interacts with the profile logic.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and contents, then adds the threshold as a compact qualifier. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not mandatory, but the description is incomplete for a tool with no schema-level parameter descriptions and no annotations. It leaves the meaning of limit and only_banned ambiguous and does not clarify whether the 5-point/2-occurrence threshold is a filter, an alerting rule, or an auto-blacklist criterion.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the two parameters, limit or only_banned. The domain context about auto-blacklisting hints at what only_banned might mean, but the description adds no concrete parameter semantics beyond the schema's names and defaults.

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 states a specific verb ('列出' / list), a clear resource ('卖家信号档案' / seller signal profiles), and the contained fields (signal score, occurrence count, auto-blacklist status). It also adds the 5-point/2-occurrence threshold, which differentiates this from simple list tools and sibling tools like signals.unban.

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 description implies the tool is for viewing seller signal profiles that meet a threshold, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings such as signals.unban, blacklist.list, or auth.risk-status. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, leaving the selection largely to inference.

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