briefing_suggest_sources

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It states that it recommends based on '兴趣偏好' (interest preferences) but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, how it uses the token, whether it modifies user settings, or what the response format looks like. This lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, with the first stating the core purpose and the second giving usage triggers. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers its purpose and usage triggers adequately. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a list of sources) and any note about read-only behavior, which would be valuable in the absence of an output schema and annotations.

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%: the only parameter 'token' has a description ('用户token或用户名。留空则自动使用默认身份。'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: '根据用户的兴趣偏好推荐新闻来源' (recommend news sources based on user interests), including specific source types (RSS, Reddit, Hacker News). The verb '推荐' (recommend) distinguishes this from sibling tools like briefing_set_sources and briefing_add_sources, which manage sources rather than suggest them. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 examples: '用户说「帮我推荐信源」「有什么好的订阅推荐」等时调用' (call when the user says 'help me recommend sources' or 'any good subscription recommendations'). This gives clear context for when the tool should be invoked, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for other scenarios.

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