cycle_collect

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 discloses that the tool writes to a local SQLite cache, but it does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting existing cache data, whether the collection is incremental, network/rate-limit implications, or that the operation may take a long time. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a mutation-like 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?

The description is a single focused sentence in Chinese that states the action, target, and purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no redundant words, and every phrase contributes meaning.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic what and why. However, it is incomplete for an agent deciding whether to invoke it: it does not clarify what '全部周期指标' includes, how to verify cache freshness beforehand, or what the tool returns beyond the schema. A bit more workflow context 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100% vacuously. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no semantic information about parameters, but none is required.

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 verb (预采集/pre-collect), a resource (全部周期指标数据/all cycle indicator data), and a destination (本地 SQLite 缓存/local SQLite cache). This distinguishes it from sibling cycle-analysis tools like cycle_detect or cycle_phase, and from cache-status tools like cycle_cache_status.

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 '避免每次分析重新拉取' (avoid re-fetching for each analysis) implies the tool should be used before analysis as a cache-warming step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternative tools (e.g., cycle_cache_status to check freshness), or provide workflow context.

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