get_problem_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb '查询' makes the read-only nature reasonably clear, and '当前' scopes the operation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral context such as data freshness, aggregation behavior, or limitations beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second routes historical-event queries to the correct sibling. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 the full schema descriptions and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for tool selection and invocation. The only notable gap is not mentioning get_problem_fact_detail as the counterpart for detailed current-problem facts, but this is not essential for correctness.

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 each of the 4 parameters is already well documented (view, hostids, group_by, time_range). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('查询', query) and resource ('当前问题摘要', current problem summary after unified classification), distinguishing it from event_get for historical events. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling get_problem_fact_detail, though the word '摘要' (summary) implies a difference in granularity.

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 explicitly directs historical-event use cases to event_get ('历史事件用event_get'), giving clear when-not guidance for the most likely confusion. However, it does not offer comparative guidance for other nearby siblings such as get_problem_fact_detail or quick_status.

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