Recent hot scenes

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

The description's 'Read' aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds context about the tool's intended role as a proactivity signal, which goes beyond the bare annotations, but it does not detail side effects or error behavior. Since annotations already cover the key behavioral aspects, this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured: it leads with the core action, then provides the contextual purpose in a parenthetical. Every word adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no complex output schema (though output schema is flagged as present, it is not detailed), the description sufficiently conveys its function and purpose. It could clarify what constitutes a 'hot scene' but the intent is clear enough.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema (default 3, min 1, max 10), and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('recent hot-scene summaries'), and adds context about being a timing signal for proactivity. This makes the tool's purpose distinct and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like card_list or memory_recall.

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 explains when to use the tool ('timing signal for proactivity: what is being worked on recently, how hot'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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