read_practice_feedback

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: a hard cap of 20 records and 80000 serialized characters, the pagination cursor protocol, and two explicit non-goals. It does reference output-side fields (next_before_revision, current_feedback_revision) rather than only input behavior, but the constraints it discloses are genuinely useful.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and followed by pagination mechanics, limits, and non-goals in a compact block with no filler. It is dense but every clause carries a constraint or routing signal, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on call mechanics and scoping. The only shortfall is leaving the required attempt_id and the limit range ambiguous, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only partially compensates. It implies a 20-item ceiling tied to limit and explains the continuation cursor, but the input parameter name is before_revision while the description calls the continuation value next_before_revision, and attempt_id's role/format is never clarified.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with scope: reads the feedback for one attempt plus all historical revisions. It distinguishes itself from pure-history or review tools by adding non-goals ('doesn't judge right/wrong', 'doesn't schedule review'), though it never names the sibling tools directly.

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?

Gives clear operational context for pagination: continue with next_before_revision until null, and use current_feedback_revision as 0 on first call. It also states exclusions ('不判断对错', '不安排复习'), which routes an agent away from review_practice_attempt/review_study_record, but does not explicitly prescribe when to choose this over those siblings by name.

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