record_growth_referral

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it logs an event, but does not mention whether it is destructive, idempotent, requires authentication, or what happens on duplicates. The behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.

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 relatively concise but includes a redundant Chinese-English pair. The args list is clear, but repeating the same information in two languages adds unnecessary length. The structure is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which may document return values, but the description does not mention output, errors, prerequisites, or side effects. All parameters are optional with defaults, but the description doesn't explain the implications. Given 5 parameters and a potentially complex event, the description is incomplete.

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 description provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'route: IssueOps 路由', 'source_url: 公开 GitHub Issue/PR/Discussion URL'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well. A score of 4 reflects good semantic value, though could be more detailed.

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 it logs a 'public IssueOps-to-MCP return event' and provides a Chinese explanation. It specifies the action and resource (recording growth referrals). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'record_share_attribution', which may cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what the tool does, without specifying context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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