刷新中科院分区映射

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds key behavioral details: it reads from a Tencent doc, merges local overrides, writes to a .runtime file, and does not modify the source. This provides transparency about side effects and the 'read-only' nuance, which is valuable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the most important caveat (no modification of source). Every word earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, process, and side effects. It doesn't explain the output schema (which exists), so that is not required. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter mapping, but overall it is complete enough for selection and invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It mentions the 'specified Tencent doc source worksheet', which hints at source_sheet and tencent_doc_url, but does not explicitly map parameter names or explain format. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the gap.

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 function: reads journal names and CAS partitions from a specified Tencent doc worksheet, merges local overrides, and writes to a .runtime mapping. It also explicitly notes it does not modify the source worksheet, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sync_results.

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 clear context about its purpose and side effects (no modification to source sheet), implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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