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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-detection from local browsers and supported browsers, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether existing login state is overwritten), permission requirements, or the behavior of QR code login. This is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a useful detail about browser support. It has no filler or redundant phrasing, though it is brief to the point of under-specification.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and an output schema, the description gives no information about return values, parameter meanings, or edge cases. It is a high-level one-liner that leaves the agent guessing about how to invoke the tool correctly. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, yet the description explains none of the five parameters (qr, raw, source, browser, qr_timeout). The only faint reference is to supported browsers, which indirectly relates to the 'browser' parameter. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('import') and resource ('login state'), and adds context about default browser auto-detection. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like auth_status or auth_reset_guard, though the name and function are reasonably distinct.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a login/authentication use case but does not state prerequisites, when to choose this over auth_status, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'release' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it clears all risk control events, requires elevated permissions, or is irreversible). This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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, succinct sentence that gets directly to the point. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params, output schema present), the description is minimally viable. It clearly states the action but lacks broader context such as when to invoke it or what the output schema contains. The description could be enhanced with a note about typical usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning to the empty schema by clarifying what the tool does, which is sufficient since no parameters need explanation.

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 '手动解除风控熔断状态' clearly states a specific action (manually reset) on a specific resource (risk control circuit breaker state). It distinguishes itself from siblings like auth_login and auth_status, which are about authentication flow rather than resetting a blocking state.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts such as 'when the system is in a circuit breaker state' or any exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns login-relevant fields, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what happens when the login state is invalid, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the action and the return values, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 params) and the presence of an output schema describing return values, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly enhanced by noting when to use it (e.g., before auth-dependent operations), but the core information is sufficient.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the schema already has no properties. The description appropriately focuses on the return information.

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 ('检查' / check) and resource ('登录态' / login state), and specifies the return fields (unb / tracknick / 昵称), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like auth_login and auth_reset_guard.

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 that the tool is used to check login validity, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use context or mention alternatives such as auth_login or auth_reset_guard. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic recognition capability and return values. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how accuracy or error cases are handled, or any limitations or prerequisites (e.g., image format), leaving a significant transparency gap.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately states inputs and outputs. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool and the existence of an output schema (which handles return value structure), the description sufficiently covers the main input-output contract. It could add a note about the optionality of images or prerequisites, but for a basic classification tool it is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by indicating that 'title' and 'image' are the semantic inputs, which the schema titles ('Title', 'Images Json') do not convey. However, it does not clarify that title is required while images_json is optional, nor does it explain the format of images_json beyond what the schema defaults suggest.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: AI-based product category recognition, with explicit inputs (title and image) and outputs (catId/catName). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which cover auth, item management, media upload, and messaging.

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 usage when a product title and image are available and a category is needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling tool offers similar category functionality, so the context is adequate but not fully spelled out.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states '写操作' (write operation) and mentions rate limiting and risk control protections, which adds useful context about side effects and constraints. However, it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or what consequences occur beyond the operation itself.

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, compact phrase that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by a brief note on operation type and protections. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is highly efficient and appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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?

Given the tool's delete/delist operation and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial contextual information. It does not mention whether the delete is soft (delist) or hard (permanent), what happens to associated data, or any side effects. It also provides no usage alternatives, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.

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 schema has one required parameter, item_id, with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter's meaning or any special requirements. Although item_id is self-explanatory, the description provides no additional value beyond the schema, and the low coverage means the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the action '下架/删除' (delist/delete) and the resource '商品' (item/product), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like item_get, item_list, and item_publish by indicating it's a delete/delist operation, which is unique among the given siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like item_get or item_publish would be more appropriate. The only hint is that it's a write operation, but that's not explicit usage guidance.

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

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

The description includes the annotation '（只读）' (read-only), which is a useful behavioral hint, but with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., item not found), rate limits, or any other side effects. The single read-only note is insufficient context for an agent to anticipate tool behavior fully.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates purpose and the read-only nature. It is front-loaded and contains no filler words, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists) the description covers basic purpose, but lacks usage guidance and parameter context. The output schema presumably handles return values, but the description still leaves gaps around when to use the tool and what the item_id parameter means, making it minimally adequate but not complete.

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 only one parameter, item_id, but the description does not elaborate on what this ID represents, how to obtain it, or any validation rules. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the parameter's name.

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 clearly states the tool's function: querying Xianyu item details (read-only). The verb '查询' (query) plus resource '商品详情' (item details) makes the purpose explicit. It also distinguishes from siblings like item_delete, item_publish, and item_list by specifying a read-only detail retrieval.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as item_view or item_list. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. Users are left to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'view' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the output includes all on-sale items or is truncated. The phrase 'API 直签' is unclear and adds no concrete behavioral detail.

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, compact sentence that immediately communicates the core purpose. It avoids verbosity, but it is perhaps too terse, missing opportunities to add value within the same length. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It correctly identifies the resource scope, but it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs alternatives) and does not explain the behavior of the limit parameter or possible response characteristics. The output schema may cover return values, so the description's remaining gap is in usage guidance.

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 one parameter (limit) with a default of 50, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the schema alone. This is a clear gap that the description should have filled.

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 clearly states the verb '查看' (view) and the resource '当前账号的在售商品' (current account's on-sale products), which precisely identifies this as a list operation. It distinguishes from siblings like item_get (single item) and search_items (search) by focusing on the current account's active listings.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_items or item_view. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing this tool over others.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals useful behavioral details: automatic category recognition, use of default address, and price unit in yuan. However, it does not disclose mutation implications, permission requirements, or failure semantics, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and then adds parenthetical context. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits critical operational context such as required authentication, error behavior, and how auto-detection interacts with provided inputs. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but not with usage semantics.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only mentions that price is in yuan. It fails to explain the meaning of title, desc, images, delivery modes, post_price, original_price, or can_self_pickup, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 clearly states '发布商品' (publish item) as the verb and resource, and adds specific context (auto-category recognition, default address, price unit) that helps distinguish it from siblings like item_delete or item_get. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or that category and location are auto-handled, which would help an agent decide to use this instead of calling category_recommend or location_default separately.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the browser-driven approach and anti-risk-control behavior, offering some insight beyond the basic operation. However, it does not detail potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., login), or reliability implications, leaving gaps.

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 concise sentence that packs the core action, the differentiating factor (more complete fields), and a key behavioral trait (anti-risk) without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and distinguishes it from item_get. It could mention prerequisites or configuration, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any explanation for the item_id parameter. While the parameter is straightforward, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema description, providing no additional semantic context.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: '浏览器视角查看商品详情' (view product details from browser perspective). It distinguishes itself from the sibling item_get by noting it provides more complete fields and anti-risk-control, making its purpose and differentiation clear.

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 provides clear comparative guidance by referencing item_get and stating that this tool has more complete fields and is anti-risk-control. This implies when to use it over alternatives, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '获取' implies a read-only 'get' operation, but it does not mention whether authentication is needed, potential side effects, or behavior when no default exists. Minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource. Every word earns its place with no redundant details.

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 simple getter with an output schema, the core purpose is clear, and the output schema can cover return values. However, missing parameter semantics and usage context leave notable gaps, making this adequate but incomplete.

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%, and the description does not mention latitude or longitude at all. The input schema shows defaults but not their meaning or effect on the result, so the agent has little guidance on how to use these parameters.

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?

Description '获取账号默认发布地址' (get account's default publishing address) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like item_publish by focusing specifically on retrieving the default location.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints. The description only states what it does, not when it should be used.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action and return value, without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, file size/type constraints, or whether the upload is permanent. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence in Chinese that conveys the action and the result efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

Though the tool is simple, the description is too brief to be complete. It lacks details about the 'path' parameter, input requirements, and any behavioral constraints. With no annotations and an output schema present, the description should provide more context, but it only covers the basic function.

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 one parameter 'path' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'path' means (e.g., local path, URL, base64), nor how it relates to the upload action. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it fails to provide any parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool uploads an image to Xianyu CDN and returns the image URL plus dimensions. The verb '上传' (upload) is specific, the resource '图片到闲鱼 CDN' is precise, and the outcome is mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which handle media uploads.

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 usage for uploading images but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there is no competing upload tool among siblings, the context is clear enough, but the description does not state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior of paginating to the end, but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly communicates the action, resource, and behavior. There is no unnecessary information.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values are already defined. The tool is simple with two parameters, and the description covers purpose and pagination behavior. It lacks edge-case handling details, but is complete for its complexity.

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 0%, but the description gives meaning to both parameters: 'cid' is the conversation identifier, and '翻页到底' implies that limit_per_page controls page size while fetching all pages. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb '拉取' (fetch) and the resource '指定 cid 会话的历史消息' (history messages of a specified cid conversation), with the added behavior of paginating to the end. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like message_send or message_watch.

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 context is clear: use when needing to fetch complete history for a specific conversation. It implies usage without explicitly mentioning alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the non-obvious 'session.sync baseline + optional WS incremental' behavior, which hints at a possible open WebSocket connection when watch_secs > 0. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or the nature of the output beyond the 'cid' reference, leaving gaps.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and context ('拉取会话列表（左栏）'). It is concise and does not waste words, though the technical jargon (session.sync, WS, cid) may reduce accessibility. Still, it earns its place by packing substantial meaning into minimal length.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema, return values are defined elsewhere. The description provides the core purpose and sync mechanism, which is useful, but it does not clarify the watch_secs behavior or how cid is populated. For a tool with two optional parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves some behavioral details unexplored.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'baseline' and 'incremental' which map conceptually to fetch_num and watch_secs, but it never explicitly defines either parameter or their defaults. The link between the mechanism and the actual parameters is left implicit, providing only weak guidance.

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 clearly states '拉取会话列表' (fetch chat list) and specifies the left column context, making it distinct from sibling tools like message_history, message_send, and message_watch which operate on individual messages. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this is the primary tool for loading the chat list in the left sidebar. It implies usage for listing conversations, while siblings handle message-level operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling names and left-column hint effectively guide selection.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for text (though this conflicts with the schema where text is optional) and that images use URL+dimensions, but omits auth needs, side effects, or failure behavior.

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, very concise sentence that front-loads the main action. However, it lacks structure and packs multiple details awkwardly, but it is not verbose or redundant.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain core parameters like cid and toid, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies text and image parameters (text required, image uses url+wh), but leaves cid, toid, item_id, and dimension fields unexplained, which is insufficient for 8 parameters.

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 clearly states the tool sends a message (text/image) to a conversation, using the verb 'send' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like message_history and message_list_chats, which are for reading or listing messages.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions text/image but does not explain when to choose one kind or when other messaging tools might be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the long-lived nature ('常驻'), output format (JSONL to stdout), and termination method (Ctrl-C). This goes beyond a bare restatement of the name, though it omits potential details like reconnection behavior or error handling, which are less critical for a simple watch tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key concept ('常驻 IM 长连接'), followed by output specifics and exit instruction. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, mode of operation, and termination. It tells the agent what to expect (JSONL stream) and how to stop it, making it sufficient for safe invocation. No additional context is necessary.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description focuses on the tool's behavior, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a persistent IM long connection that outputs downstream events as JSONL to stdout, and mentions exit via Ctrl-C. This distinguishes it from siblings like message_history (past messages) and message_send (sending), establishing a specific watch/stream scope.

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 usage for live event monitoring ('常驻' meaning resident/continuous) and provides exit instructions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like message_history for historical data. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool uses a browser path and is designed for anti-risk-control, which gives some sense of its operational nature. However, it does not mention whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise sentence with a parenthetical qualifier, containing no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and the parenthetical adds essential context efficiently. Every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return value documentation is partially covered. However, the description lacks critical context about pagination behavior, how the limit parameter works, or any constraints on search queries. It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves clear gaps in understanding the full behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'query' or 'limit' parameters at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names and default value, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: '搜索闲鱼商品' (search Xianyu products), using a specific verb and resource. It also adds contextual distinction with '（浏览器路径，抗风控）' (browser path, anti-risk-control), which differentiates it from potential API-based siblings like item_list. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, so it does not fully distinguish from siblings.

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 parenthetical '（浏览器路径，抗风控）' implies that this tool is used when a browser-based, risk-control-resistant search is needed, suggesting a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as item_list or category_recommend, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

The core behavior is transparent: it copies built-in skills to a destination. However, it does not disclose the effects of the 'force' flag (e.g., overwriting existing files) or the 'list' flag (e.g., listing without copying), and with no annotations the description carries the full burden for safety info.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the primary purpose. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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?

The tool has three parameters and no annotations, yet the description only covers the main copy action. The 'list' and 'force' flags likely alter behavior significantly but are omitted, leaving the tool under-specified for an agent to use all features correctly.

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 schema offers zero descriptions for three parameters, and the description only hints at 'dest' via '--dest'. The 'list' and 'force' flags remain completely unexplained, so the description provides insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action: copying built-in Claude Skills to a target directory (~/.claude/skills/ or a --dest path). It uses a concrete verb and resource and is easily distinguished from all sibling tools, which concern auth, items, messages, or media.

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 when to use the tool (when installing/copying built-in skills) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since no sibling tools serve a similar purpose, the context is adequate but not richly explanatory.

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