briefing_log_interaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-trigger behavior and the purpose (interest trend analysis), but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, or return behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 primary purpose, and contains no redundant text. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 a simple logging tool with a well-documented schema, the description provides sufficient context about when and why it is used. It could mention return behavior or how logged data is stored, but these are not critical given the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond what the schema already provides, but it aligns the action values with user behaviors mentioned in the description.

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 records user reading behavior ('记录用户的阅读行为'), with a specific verb and resource. It also enumerates triggering actions (expand news, discuss, save), which differentiates it from sibling tools like briefing_interaction_summary or briefing_view_log.

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 when the tool is called ('当用户展开某条新闻、深入讨论、或收藏时，自动调用'), providing clear context. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the auto-call triggers are sufficient for this logging tool.

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