重复项列表

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's only added job is to explain what is returned. It does not say whether the result is a collection, whether it includes archived/deleted recurrences, or how the two item types (收支 vs 固定项) are combined — despite there being no output schema to fill that gap.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded, though brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing.

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?

With no input schema, no output schema, and only a readOnly hint, the description is the sole source of contract information, yet it never says what a call returns. The vague word '文档' (documents) leaves the agent guessing whether it gets a list, a single doc, or a paginated set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description makes no false claims about 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?

The description names the resource (重复收支/固定项, i.e. recurring income/expense and fixed items) but uses '读取...文档' (read documents) rather than stating that it lists items, which blurs it against the tool name recurring.list. It is distinguishable from recurring.update only by inference from the verb, not from explicit contrast.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus recurring.update or any of the many other *.list siblings. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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