aida_log_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the user-consent requirement and clearly defines scope boundaries (allowed categories vs prohibited business logic). It implies this is a persistent write operation but omits failure modes or idempotency details.

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?

Single complex sentence that efficiently packs purpose, condition, scope, and restrictions without redundancy. Information is front-loaded with the action (沉淀项目规则). Minor improvement possible by breaking into two sentences for readability.

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?

Appropriate for a 3-parameter logging tool with no output schema. The description sufficiently covers domain-specific logic (technical vs business rules) and prerequisites (user consent). Could mention whether rule deposition is idempotent or what confirms success.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds semantic value by mapping the category enum values to concrete examples (公共组件使用规范→component, API调用规范→api, 代码风格/架构规范→style/architecture) and contextualizing sourceDeviation as linking to specific deviation IDs.

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 uses a specific verb (沉淀/deposit) with a specific resource (项目规则/project rules). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like aida_log_bug and aida_log_deviation by specifying this is specifically for rule-missing root causes and technical specifications.

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?

Provides explicit triggering conditions (当偏差的 rootCause 为 rule-missing), scope restrictions (项目级技术规范 vs 业务逻辑), and clear prohibitions (禁止沉淀业务逻辑). It also notes the consent requirement (询问用户同意后), establishing a critical workflow constraint.

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