topic_timeline

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read/retrieve ('返回'), implying non-destructive, but it never explicitly states it does not modify data or that it is safe. It also doesn't mention authorization or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences long and packs a lot of information efficiently. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage advice. No unnecessary words or repetition, though the phrase '主题证据时间线' partly repeats the tool name. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the general purpose but omits critical details like what the 'query' should contain (a topic presumably), the exact return format (beyond '若干篇含片段'), and how results are ordered. Without an output schema, the agent has no idea what the response structure will be, making it insufficient for reliable 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It mentions 'year/quarter/month' which implicitly refers to the 'granularity' parameter, but it does not explain 'query' or 'per_bucket'. The word '若干篇' hints at 'per_bucket' but without naming it. The description leaves most parameter meanings undocumented, making it hard for an agent to know exactly what inputs to provide.

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 a topic timeline bucketed by year/quarter/month with relevant articles and snippets, for tracking evolution of a topic. It specifies the verb (returns), the resource (topic timeline), and the intended use case. It also hints at differentiating from siblings like 'search' by being the first step for research.

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 recommends using this tool first when researching a specific scenario or question ('先用这个建立证据骨架'), providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when to avoid it or name alternative tools (e.g., 'phrase_trend' for trend analysis). The guidance is present but lacks exclusion criteria.

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