万忆轨迹回放

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well by detailing what each action does: timeline replays all branches chronologically, stats provides specific metrics like settlement rate and risk distribution, route compares actual versus all-obey paths, and review summarizes recent decisions. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output structure, but the visualization/replay framing makes the non-mutating nature reasonably clear.

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 well structured: core purpose first, action breakdown second, and user benefit last. The '护城河#4' branding and the somewhat repetitive closing sentence add minor noise, but overall every section earns its place and the length is appropriate.

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 three optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, this description covers all significant behavior: the four modes, the main data categories, and the role of the review window. It does not describe exact response shapes or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to select the tool and invoke it with reasonable confidence.

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, but the description adds real value by explaining the semantics of the action values and linking days to the review window and limit to timeline. This helps an agent understand how the parameters affect output beyond their terse schema 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 states the tool's core purpose: replaying historical counterfactual branches into a decision timeline and visualizing decision evolution. It enumerates four concrete action modes (timeline/stats/route/review), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from potentially overlapping siblings like 万忆反事实之镜 or 万忆查询进化.

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?

The description implies that the tool is for retrospective decision-career visualization and analysis, with each action serving a distinct purpose. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the selection largely to inference.

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