briefing_add_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that sources are appended and not overwritten, which is important side-effect information. It lacks details on authentication, duplicate handling, or return values, but the core behavior is clearly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and append behavior. It is concise with no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has 4 optional parameters fully described in the schema, and the description covers purpose, append behavior, and usage examples. Without an output schema, it sufficiently prepares the agent for invocation. A minor gap is not mentioning the hn_keywords parameter in examples or explicit alternative tool usage, but overall it is complete enough.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description's examples map to rss and reddit parameters, but it does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already explains. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 the tool adds custom news sources with a specific verb ('添加') and resource ('自定义新闻来源'). It also clarifies the append behavior ('追加，不会覆盖已有的'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like briefing_set_sources that likely replace sources.

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?

Clear trigger examples are provided ('帮我加一个RSS', '我还想看XX的Reddit'), indicating when to call. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools like briefing_set_sources, relying on the append-vs-overwrite distinction to imply the appropriate context.

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