read_lessons

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It names the action and file, but does not disclose the return format, error behavior, whether the content is raw Markdown, or any side-effect/safety guarantees. This is not a tautology, but it is materially incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words: it gives the action, the resource, and the specific filename. This is appropriately sized for a no-parameter read tool.

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 is simple enough that naming the file may be largely sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent is not told what it will receive or how to interpret the result. It also lacks guidance on when this file is relevant relative to the many nearby knowledge and think-related 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 input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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 verb ('读取' / read) and an exact resource ('lessons-missteps.md'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_think_md or read_entity, because the target file 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as read_think_md, get_think, or search_knowledge. The description only says what the tool reads, not the context or conditions under which it should be selected.

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