briefing_create_profile_interactive

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns guidance questions, collects responses, and then invokes briefing_set_profile, making the multi-turn and delegation behavior transparent. It does not mention failure handling or cancellation, but covers the essential interaction pattern.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and trigger conditions, followed by the behavioral outcome. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant details.

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 an interactive tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the workflow: trigger phrases, the Q&A nature, returning questions, and the subsequent call to briefing_set_profile. It could include more details about the question format or fallback behavior, but the provided context is adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for the single 'token' parameter, explaining it can be empty. The tool description adds no extra semantic context about this parameter. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3; no additional value is provided here.

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 that the tool gathers user interest preferences through interactive Q&A. It uses a specific verb+resource ('understand user's interest preferences') and distinguishes itself from the sibling briefing_set_profile by indicating that this tool handles the interactive collection phase before delegating submission to briefing_set_profile.

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 states when to invoke the tool, providing example user utterances ('帮我设置偏好', '重新设置我关注的内容'). It also implies the flow: collect answers then call briefing_set_profile. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., if preferences are already known), so it lacks an exclusion clause.

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