briefing_get_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions return fields but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how user identity (token) affects results, whether results are sorted/deduplicated, or any constraints on the returned data. The description is too sparse to give the agent confidence about the tool's behavior.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains return fields and purpose. No redundant wording, no filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not explain how the 'token' parameter affects results (user-specific articles), nor does it mention what happens when no articles exist or how date ranges work. The description refers to future filtering by Claude, but leaves out important context about user scoping.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (date, limit, token) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The description does not clarify how these parameters interact (e.g., token scoping), but the schema already covers each parameter individually.

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 retrieves a list of already-fetched articles ("获取已抓取的文章列表"), specifies return fields (title, source, summary), and differentiates from sibling tools like briefing_fetch_articles by using "已抓取" (already fetched). The intended downstream use (filtering/analyzing by user preferences) is also explicit.

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 context is clear: this tool is for accessing articles that have already been fetched, implying it should be used after a fetch operation. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the phrase "已抓取" provides sufficient usage context without requiring further elaboration.

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