due_cards

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output nature ('复习卡片'/'复习清单' – a list of due cards) and implies a non-destructive read operation with '获取'. However, it does not explicitly state whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or what '点亮式' visually means, leaving some behavior implied rather than explicit.

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?

Two sentences: first states what the tool does, second states when to call it. No redundant words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. This is an efficient, well-structured definition.

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 zero-parameter, simple retrieval tool, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and triggering condition. Without an output schema, it doesn't fully describe the return structure, but the phrase '复习清单' makes it clear the result is a list, which is enough given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100% (empty schema). The description contributes no parameter details because there are none, which matches the baseline for 0-parameter tools. All needed information is already present.

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 action ('获取今天到期的复习卡片' – get review cards due today) with a clear resource ('复习卡片') and scope ('今天到期'). It also names the trigger phrases, and the wording distinguishes it from siblings like search_cards, review_card, and weekly_report by focusing on the 'today + due' use case.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: when the user says '复习' (review) or '今天该复习什么' (what should I review today). This is clear context for when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'not for weekly reports').

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