progress

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is scope disclosure: a status breakdown and a hard cap of '最近抽的 10 个'. That fixed limit is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it stops short of describing ordering, totals, or what '有备注的' covers.

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?

A single compact sentence: purpose first, then a colon-led enumeration of the concrete metrics. No filler and nothing to trim.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the definition carries almost the entire burden of context already; the description's metric list is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It adds little on return shape, but the output schema covers that.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The enumerated metrics give the agent a sense of what the argument-less call produces.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('查看整体学习进度') and then enumerates exactly what the view contains: touch counts, per-status counts, noted items, and the 10 most recently drawn. The word '整体' (overall) implicitly separates it from the single-item sibling idiom_detail, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the aggregate dashboard to call before drilling into idiom_detail, but the description never says when to prefer it over that sibling or over search_idiom. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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