万忆主动搭档

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: proactive/automatic invocation ('不等用户开口自动出击', 'LOAD钩子自动调用') and immediate alerting with interception advice. It does not state whether actions are read-only, whether summaries are persisted, or what outputs are returned.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core concept, then packs all four actions and their triggers into a single paragraph. It is efficient, though the run-on structure and the '护城河#5' marker add a bit of noise and could be organized as bullets.

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 four sub-behaviors and no output schema or annotations, more would be expected: return shapes, side effects, and whether alert is the only action requiring text are left implicit. The description still covers the main invocation paths (action values, triggers, key inputs), so it is adequate but not fully 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining what each action does and mapping text to alert scanning with concrete risk-word examples and days to weekly_review cadence. It meaningfully enriches the bare parameter descriptions rather than merely repeating the schema.

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 clear meta-purpose (proactive auto-acting partner) and enumerates four distinct sub-operations, each with a specific verb and resource: brief今日简报, proactive_check主动体检, weekly_review每周轨迹回放复盘, and alert风险关键词扫描. However, it never explicitly differentiates from siblings such as 万忆轨迹回放 or 万忆触发LOAD钩子, whose domains partly overlap.

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?

Each action has an implicit or explicit trigger: brief is called by the LOAD hook, proactive_check targets 到期/超期/重复踩坑, weekly_review is described as weekly, and alert fires on risk keywords. This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though there are no when-not-to-use statements or explicit routing to alternative sibling tools.

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