Generate a personal evolution review comparing the last 7 days with the prior 7, listing resolved anchors, recurring pitfalls, weak spots, and new insights to help you assess progress.
生成个人进化周报（纯本地统计，零依赖）：对比最近 7 天与前 7 天。 四张清单：①不再问了的锚点（内化信号：上周问得多本周零新卡）②还在重复踩的坑（同锚点症状高相似卡对）③薄弱锚点（最近两周复习忘了≥2次）④本周新触达的锚点。 用户说「复盘」「周报」「我进步了吗」时调用：拿到统计后，由你结合本周对话与流水写成叙事周报（成长/缺陷/建议），别只复述数字。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is pure local statistics with zero dependencies and specifies the four output lists precisely. It does not explicitly state 'read-only', but the framing strongly implies a safe, side-effect-free computation.
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 but every segment earns its place: purpose, data window, four list definitions, trigger phrases, and the narrative-writing instruction. The numbered list improves scanability and keeps the description structured.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (the four lists with their criteria) and how the agent should use that output. Nothing necessary for correct invocation or follow-up is missing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the 100% schema coverage is vacuous and no parameter documentation is needed. The description still adds useful semantic context by defining the data window: comparing the current 7 days against the prior 7 days.
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 verb and resource: generating a personal evolution weekly report that compares the last 7 days to the previous 7 days, and lists four specific output lists. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_card and review_card.
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 names trigger phrases ('复盘', '周报', '我进步了吗') and instructs the agent to write a narrative weekly report after receiving the statistics, not just repeat numbers. This gives clear when-to-use context and expected follow-up behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.