万忆置信度决策检查

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can BLOCK low-confidence decisions, surface historical mistakes, and automatically trigger moat #2 to open counterfactual branches. This reveals critical side effects and control-flow behavior beyond the bare schema.

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 purpose, then flows into action semantics, usage instructions, and behavioral consequences. It is slightly long and packed into a single paragraph, but every sentence contributes useful information with minimal waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers the main decision points: supported actions, required inputs, high-risk trigger contexts, and block/linkage behavior. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but the essential selection and invocation guidance is present.

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 meaning by explaining the role of each action value, indicating which actions require decision_text, and clarifying validate/challenge as support/opposition votes. This goes beyond the schema's short field 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 defines the tool as a cognitive confidence check for high-risk decisions, enumerates all seven supported actions (check/validate/challenge/review/get/rank/needs_review), and names concrete risk scenarios. This makes the purpose specific and distinct from the sibling memory tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: '在做重仓、追涨、删库、强推等高风险动作前必调用' (must call before high-risk actions). It does not discuss when not to use it or name a specific alternative, but the mandated usage context is strong and actionable.

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