hologram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only operation ('查看', '展示') which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences and an emoji. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specifics. There's minimal waste, though the emoji adds slight decorative flair without substantive value.

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 (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., how data is returned, any limitations). With an output schema, it doesn't need to detail return values, but should cover operational aspects missing from 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as no parameter information is needed.

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 purpose: '查看 Noosphere 智识圈的全景统计' (view Noosphere knowledge circle's panoramic statistics) and specifies what it displays: overall overview, total consciousness count, type distribution, recent uploads. It uses specific verbs ('查看', '展示') and resources ('全景统计', '意识仓库'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telepath' or 'upload_consciousness'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools 'telepath' or 'upload_consciousness', nor does it specify prerequisites, timing, or exclusion criteria. The context is implied (viewing statistics) but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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