万忆查询进化

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

没有 annotations，描述承担了行为说明负担。它明确这是“查询/可观测性”操作，并交代了返回内容和数据来源（真实发生在文件系统上的进化），行为透明。虽未显式说“只读”，但“查询”和“可观测性”已足够暗示无副作用。

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?

单句描述，破折号前给出核心信息，破折号后补充观测性与数据真实性，没有冗余内容。语言简洁且关键信息前置，每个部分都服务于帮助代理理解工具。

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?

工具只有 1 个可选参数，无 output schema，复杂度低。描述覆盖了目的、输出维度和数据来源，足以支撑正确调用；缺少明确的使用条件，但未影响基本完整性。

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?

input schema 覆盖率为 100%，唯一参数 limit 已在 schema 中有“返回条数”的描述，因此描述无需额外解释参数。描述本身也未增加超出 schema 的参数语义，符合无补偿需求时的基线 3 分。

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?

描述以“最近进化记录”开头，明确资源与查询意图，并具体列出“谁变了、为什么变、置信度变化”等返回维度。这使其与记忆、存档、导入等兄弟工具形成清晰区分，代理无需打开 schema 即可判断用途。

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?

描述没有说明何时使用此工具、何时不该使用，也没有点名任何替代工具。“任何聊天框都能查到”仅暗示通用可访问性，未提供选择依据或排除条件，使用指引明显不足。

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