briefing_fetch_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that it fetches from subscribed sources and explains the hours_back semantics, but it does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or behavior when no sources are available. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the main purpose, the second gives usage triggers and time range mappings. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: purpose, trigger phrases, and time range semantics. However, it does not explain how this tool differs from the similar sibling 'briefing_get_articles' or what the return data looks like, which is a minor gap for a no-output-schema tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it repeats the hours_back mapping (24=今天, 168=本周, 720=本月) already present in the parameter description. The token parameter is not elaborated further, so the description provides no additional meaning.

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 fetches latest content from subscribed news sources and gives example user utterances ('看看今天的新闻', etc.). It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'briefing_get_articles', so it loses a point for lacking sibling distinction.

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 says to call this tool when users ask about today's news, recent highlights, or weekly briefings, and maps time ranges (24=今天, etc.). It provides clear context for when to use but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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