personal_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a key behavior: the tool refuses to read when the precondition/capture_id is missing, and '读取' indicates a read-only operation. It does not cover output format or error details, but the refusal condition is meaningful.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation, and the second states the prerequisite and refusal behavior, keeping the most important usage constraint front-loaded and concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema descriptions, this description is the only guidance an agent has. It includes a crucial prerequisite but omits the meaning of the view and query parameters, and does not describe what the returned survey data contains. This leaves the agent unable to make informed choices about non-required parameters or expected outputs.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains that capture_id must be provided from the preflight capture, but says nothing about view (survey/routing/full) or query. With one of three parameters explained, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('读取') and a specific resource ('v2 全局勘察'), so the agent knows this is a read/catalog operation. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like personal_retrieve, but the resource and precondition narrow the purpose enough.

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 clearly states when the tool is usable: only after the current turn's preflight capture is complete and a capture_id is provided; otherwise it refuses. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer a sibling tool for other kinds of retrieval.

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