generate_summary_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool generates reports and returns JSON with Markdown content, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, processing time, or what '热点摘要' (hotspot summary) specifically entails. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond basic functionality.

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 sized but not optimally structured. The purpose statement is clear, but the parameter documentation is embedded in the description rather than separated, and the formatting with asterisks and colons is somewhat inconsistent. Every sentence adds value, but the organization could be more front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage but has an output schema, the description provides adequate parameter documentation but lacks context about the tool's behavioral characteristics. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but for a report generation tool with no annotations, more information about what constitutes a '热点摘要' (hotspot summary) and when to use it would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It provides detailed information about both parameters: report_type options (daily/weekly) and date_range format/constraints with examples. This adds significant semantic value beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain the relationship between report_type and date_range or when date_range is required.

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 as '自动生成热点摘要报告' (automatically generate hotspot summary reports) with '每日/每周' (daily/weekly) scope, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'analyze_topic_trend' or 'get_trending_topics', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 like 'analyze_topic_trend' or 'get_trending_topics'. It mentions the report_type parameter (daily/weekly) but doesn't explain the context for choosing between them or when this tool is appropriate versus other analysis tools in the sibling list.

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