建立会话关联

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether links are reversible, whether duplicates are rejected, what permissions are needed, or what a successful link produces; only the kind semantics are explained. That leaves the agent guessing about the side effects of a write operation.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core action and then enumerates the kinds without waste. It is efficient, though the parenthetical kind glosses are slightly compressed and could be marginally clearer.

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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description omits the meaning of linked_ids, validation behavior, and the project-unresolved caveat (which lives only in the schema). It names the consumer tool but does not do enough to let an agent call it confidently.

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 50%, and the required linked_ids has no documentation anywhere. The description does add real value by glossing the three kind values (延续/相关/挂载) that the bare enum only lists, which compensates partially but not fully for the missing linked_ids meaning.

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?

It states a clear verb and resource ('把两个会话建立关联' = establish a link between two sessions) and points to the consumer get_linked_sessions, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from link-adjacent siblings like suggest_related_sessions, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It names the downstream use ('供 get_linked_sessions 与跨会话追溯'), which implies when the tool is appropriate, and it disambiguates the three kind values. But there is no explicit when-not or comparison against alternatives like suggest_related_sessions or annotate_session.

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