event_daily_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose key behavioral traits: display counts default to the scheduled push report and can be overridden per chapter. It also mentions the production-only filter tied to ZABBIX_TEST_NETWORKScars. While it doesn't explicitly state side-effect freedom, 'generate Markdown' strongly implies a non-mutating report operation.

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, front-loaded Chinese sentence conveys the core action, the default display behavior, and the two main customization axes. There is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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 that all 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could add a brief list of report chapters or explicit alternative routing, but the essential calling context is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying the top_n_* parameters to 'chapter overrides' and clarifying that default counts follow the scheduled push report. This is context beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('生成运维日报 Markdown') and makes it clear this is the daily report, distinguishing it from siblings like event_weekly_report and event_monthly_report. The output artifact and its format are unambiguous.

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?

It provides useful context—default counts match the scheduled push report and sections/production scope can be overridden—but it never names alternatives or states conditions for choosing daily vs weekly/monthly. Usage timing is implied by the tool name rather than explicitly explained.

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