lifedb_around

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the query performs a three-branch UNION with full index seek, which conveys cross-modal scope and performance characteristics, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, how results are ordered, or any pagination behavior.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the core behavior and then add implementation/use context. Every part earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema or title.

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 return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, important gaps remain: the ts format, the limit parameter's effect, and any routing guidance versus sibling tools are missing. The description is adequate but not complete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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% for three parameters. The description adds useful meaning for window by giving example formats and clarifying that it spans before and after ts, and it implicitly explains ts as the center point, but it completely omits the limit parameter and does not specify the expected timestamp format.

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 returns all cross-modal events within a window before and after a timestamp, with examples like '30m'/'2h'/'1d'. It is specific about the resource and temporal scope, but does not differentiate itself from sibling tools or begin with a clear action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve'.

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 phrase '用于那一刻发生了什么' gives an implied use case for exploring a specific moment, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as lifedb_query_month or lifedb_geo_track, nor any when-not-to-use condition.

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