大事日历-月度视图

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the core behavior—returning events for a given month—but it does not explain the meaning of default 0 values for year and month, or describe the returned event structure. This is a simple read operation, so the lack of side-effect warnings is acceptable, but default semantics remain unclear.

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 compact sentence that states both the function and the intended use case with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and easily scannable.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers the main purpose, but it leaves the default year=0/month=0 behavior unexplained and gives no hint about the event object shape. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, slightly more context about defaults and return content would make it fully complete.

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%, and the description only refers to '某年某月' without explaining the year and month parameters or their default values. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaningful detail about valid ranges, what 0 means, or parameter formatting.

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 a specific action and resource: '返回某年某月的事件' (returns events for a given year and month) and adds the intended use case '用于月历渲染' (for calendar rendering). This distinguishes it from range-based or detail-oriented calendar siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase '用于月历渲染' gives an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over calendar_range, calendar_upcoming, or calendar_event_detail. It does not state when-not-to-use or mention sibling alternatives.

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