日历-刷新采集

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect (writing to reports.db), that it invokes an external script, and that it returns collection statistics. It does not disclose idempotency (whether repeated manual runs create duplicate events), runtime duration, or failure behavior, which are material concerns for a collect/refresh tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action and script, the data source and destination database, then the return value plus the scheduling note. The information is front-loaded with the triggering action first and contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool this is mostly complete: script, source, destination, return value, and automation status are all covered. The main gap is the vague return value ('采集统计') with no output schema to elaborate, and no statement about whether re-invocation is safe or duplicates results.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no space on parameter detail and instead focuses on the operation and its return value.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: it manually triggers the script scripts/calendar_collect.py, pulls events from public calendars (解禁/新股/业绩预告), and writes them into reports.db. This differentiates it from the calendar query siblings (calendar_upcoming, calendar_range, calendar_month, calendar_event_detail) which are read tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named calendar_seed.

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 clear context — this is a manual trigger of an automated collection job — and notes that a scheduled task also runs it daily, which implies an agent may not need to call it for routine freshness. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or any exclusions, so the agent must infer that the calendar query tools are for reading the collected data.

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