commons_harvest_rule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the 'full' action persists promoted rules, what side effects occur, what the tool returns, or whether operations are reversible.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that some behavioral details are missing, which slightly reduces effectiveness.

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 an unannotated tool with no output schema, this one-line description is incomplete. It does not explain what a rule candidate looks like, whether call logs are read automatically or supplied via case_texts, what the full promotion step changes, or what the response contains.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the source context ('commons logs + Refine loop') but does not meaningfully elaborate on the action or case_texts parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific action and resource: '从公地调用日志 + Refine 循环提炼质量规则候选' (distill quality rule candidates from commons call logs + Refine loop). This distinguishes it from generic siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with closely related commons_* or refine tools.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The action parameter explains the harvest vs full modes mechanically, but not the conditions that would make an agent choose this tool over refine or other commons_* tools.

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