personal_retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a critical behavioral constraint: it will refuse to read unless capture_id is provided, which is valuable. It does not disclose whether the operation is purely read-only, any side effects, or what the response contains, so some transparency gaps remain.

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 a single sentence with high information density. The critical precondition is front-loaded, and every clause adds essential information: the data scope, the level, and the mandatory capture_id. There is no filler or repetition.

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 the lack of input schema descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description leaves important gaps: the meaning of 'ids' and 'query', the expected return structure, and any additional constraints. The tool has 4 parameters and 11 sibling tools, so the description alone is not enough for an agent to confidently invoke it without further inference.

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 undocumented parameters. It does mention capture_id (required) and implicitly 'probe/deep' maps to the level enum, but it gives no explanation for the 'ids' and 'query' parameters. Therefore, it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb '读取' (read) and a specific resource ('probe/deep'), and it maps directly to the tool name personal_retrieve. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating the required precondition (preflight capture + capture_id) and the data scope (v2 events, entities, situation cards). No other sibling tool is described as reading probe/deep in this manner.

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 gives explicit context on when the tool can be used: after completing the current turn's preflight capture, and with a valid capture_id. It also states the when-not: without the capture_id it will refuse to read. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternative sibling tools or direct the agent to a different tool for other retrieval scenarios.

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