maimemo_get_study_progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is a public beta with no availability guarantee subject to change, and accurate totals require same-day App initialization plus enabled auto-sync. These are real operational caveats beyond the structured fields.

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 the text is short, but it carries HTML markup (<b> tags) and stray escape artifacts ('\ \') that add noise without meaning. A cleaner plain sentence would serve the agent better.

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 no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the accuracy caveat, the beta stability warning, and the sync prerequisite — enough for an agent to call it and interpret results sensibly. Only the exact return shape is unspecified, which is a minor gap here.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 and resource ('获取今日学习进度' / get today's study progress), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_today_items or query_study_records. No explicit sibling differentiation or scope statement, but the purpose is 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?

Provides precondition context ('当日未打开 App 进行初始化则无法准确计算总数', requires auto-sync enabled) which tells the agent when results are reliable. However, it never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_today_items or query_study_records, leaving selection to inference.

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