briefing_register

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that a token is returned and that later the token or username can be used for identification, which is useful. However, it does not state side effects such as whether a profile is created, whether registration is idempotent, or whether any user data is persisted beyond the token.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and trigger phrases. Every sentence adds information: the first states the purpose, the second explains the return value and its future use. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential points: when to call, what it does, and what it returns. It could be more complete by clarifying how this tool relates to sibling tools like briefing_create_profile_interactive, but for a simple registration flow it is largely sufficient.

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 is simple and fully documented, with 'name' described as optional. The description adds semantic value by stating that the username can later be used for identification ('后续可以用token或用户名识别身份'), which goes beyond the raw schema. This clarifies the practical role of the only parameter.

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 '注册新闻简报服务' (register news briefing service), using a specific verb and resource. It also provides example user utterances, making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from a sibling tool like briefing_create_profile_interactive, which may perform a similar registration-like action.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: '用户说「帮我注册」「我想开始用简报」等时调用' (call when the user says 'help me register' or 'I want to start using briefing'). This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, stopping short of a full 5.

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