briefing_interaction_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says '分析' (analyze) without specifying the data source, whether it modifies anything, or what output format it produces. The lack of details about side effects or return type leaves an agent with significant uncertainty.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and then gives usage triggers. It is efficiently written with no filler or redundant 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?

The description provides enough to select the tool among many siblings and gives trigger phrases for invocation, and the schema covers parameters. However, without an output schema or annotations, the lack of details on return format and data source leaves the agent with some uncertainty about what to expect after calling.

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 coverage is 100% with both 'days' and 'token' described, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it neither enhances nor detracts from parameter clarity.

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's purpose: '分析用户最近的阅读兴趣趋势' (analyze user's recent reading interest trends). It uses a specific verb plus resource and differentiates from sibling tools like briefing_view_log or briefing_get_articles by focusing on trend analysis. The trigger phrases also help distinguish this from raw log retrieval.

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 provides explicit trigger conditions: '用户说「我最近关注了什么」「这周看了些啥」等时调用' (call when the user says these phrases). This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, which prevents a top score.

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