万忆经验库

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only describes the content/purpose in nominal terms; it does not say whether the call is read-only, whether it returns a list or a single pattern, or how limit/task_name affect execution. '沉淀' even introduces ambiguity about whether the tool stores or retrieves.

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 text is extremely short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than feature-complete. A single noun-phrase clause conveys purpose without separating what the tool does from when it should be used.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the return shape and invocation behavior; it instead only restates the conceptual role of the experience library. The optional parameters are documented in the schema, but the high-level behavior and output remain unspecified.

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%: limit is documented as 返回条数 and task_name as 按任务筛选. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already carries the full burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (经验库) and its content (成功路径沉淀的可复用模式), and hints at cross-task reuse, so it is not a tautology. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as '查询' or '检索', leaving the agent to infer that this tool retrieves experience patterns rather than, say, creating or consolidating them.

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?

'跨任务迁移复用' offers a plausible use case: retrieve reusable patterns from successful paths to apply to new tasks. But the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like 万忆轨迹回放 or 万忆错题本, nor does it mention exclusions.

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