万忆加载进度

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses query modes but omits critical traits: possible side effects (e.g., whether loading triggers LOAD hooks, given a sibling named 万忆触发LOAD钩子 exists), return format, behavior when both parameters are supplied, and error handling. This is a significant gap for a state-loading 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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the query modes. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain return behavior, parameter precedence, and side effects. It covers only the query modes superficially, leaving an agent unable to predict what a load returns or whether it mutates state.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by introducing the 全量 query option (calling with no parameters), which is not explicitly stated in the schema, but it does not clarify parameter interaction like mutual exclusivity between task_name and checkpoint_id.

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 and resource ('加载历史存档' — load historical archives) and enumerates the three query modes (checkpoint_id, task_name, 全量). This is clear and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 万忆触发LOAD钩子 or 万忆轨迹回放.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The query modes imply use cases, but there are no exclusions, no named alternatives, and no mention of whether this tool should be preferred over 万忆触发LOAD钩子 for state restoration or 万忆轨迹回放 for replay scenarios.

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