get_resume_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output format (wrapped in XML tags) and the effect of empty project_folder. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or safe to call multiple times, nor does it disclose error conditions or permissions.

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 well-structured with Chinese/English sections, Purpose, Lifecycle, and Args. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. It is 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's complexity (combining multiple data sources) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what parameters mean. It could mention read-only behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: project_folder is optional and empty returns identity-only; token_budget is a soft cap with default 2000 ≈ 8000 chars. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's simple defaults.

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 a cross-session, cross-tool resume brief that returns identity, project state, daily log, recent context, lessons/decisions, and suggested docs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_identity_card, get_daily_log, etc., by consolidating their outputs into a single call.

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 explicit lifecycle guidance: call before the first user message in a new session when continuing prior work, or when the user says phrases like '接着上次'. It implies this is the consolidated alternative to individual getters, though it could explicitly state 'instead of calling each getter separately'.

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