查看迭代改善计划

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is non-destructive, only proposes auditable suggestions, and will never automatically modify OCR rules, code, or tasks. This is strong transparency for safe tool selection.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. The second sentence adds valuable safety context without unnecessary detail.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description covers purpose and safety well. However, the complete absence of parameter-level guidance and limited usage context leaves a noticeable gap for an agent selecting and invoking this tool effectively.

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 the three parameters, and the description does not explain job_dir, max_issues, or strategy_version. It only provides high-level context like 'current task status' and 'quality inspection,' leaving the agent to infer parameter meanings from names and defaults.

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 generates versioned improvement suggestions based on task status, quality inspections, and regulatory events. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from modifying tools by stating it never automatically rewrites OCR rules, updates code, or reruns tasks.

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 implies use when improvement suggestions are needed and provides a clear when-not by stating it never takes automatic actions. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or provide explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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