audit_reading

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of the audit (facts, sources, timing, conflicts, safety) but not behavioral details such as return format, whether it cross-references a knowledge base, or any rate limits.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact list of audit dimensions. It is concise but perhaps over-compressed, making the dimensions feel like a fragment without supporting context.

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?

While the tool is simple (one payload param) and an output schema exists, the description leaves the payload semantics entirely unspecified and does not define key terms like safety boundaries or time precision. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call without additional external knowledge.

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 schema has one undocumented payload object with additionalProperties=true and no description (0% coverage), and the description never explains what the payload should contain—such as the interpretation text, structured data, or output from a sibling tool. This is a major gap that the description fails to fill.

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 names a specific verb (审计/audit) on the resource 解读 (reading) and enumerates precise audit dimensions: factual references, sources, temporal precision, conflicts, and safety boundaries. This clearly distinguishes it from calculation, search, and run-management siblings.

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 implies when to use the tool—when an interpretation's factual integrity needs auditing—but does not explicitly state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives like search_knowledge or calculate_*. The intended context is inferable, not spelled out.

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