my_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses user scope ('自己') and book scope ('此书'), which are useful traits, and implies a read-only retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state what items are returned or any limitations, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single compact sentence that conveys scope and purpose with no filler. The parenthetical adds high-value usage guidance without unnecessary length.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, this is mostly complete: it identifies the entity (own thoughts for a book) and the intended workflow. The main gap is a more formal statement of what '想法' includes, such as reviews versus comments or annotations, which matters given the many related sibling tools.

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 schema has one required parameter, book_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description's '此书' loosely maps to the book identifier, but it does not explain the parameter's format, meaning, or usage. With such low schema coverage, the description provides insufficient compensation.

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 phrase '自己在此书的全部想法' indicates the tool returns the user's own thoughts/reviews for a specific book, and '写前防重复' clarifies the retrieval purpose. It distinguishes itself from add_review and list_comments by emphasizing own content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get/list'.

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 parenthetical '写前防重复、延续语气' explicitly states the intended use case: before writing a review, to avoid duplication and maintain consistent tone. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but for a simple read-style retrieval tool the context is reasonably clear.

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