invest_theme_collect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that data is written to reports.db with a specific rtype and is managed alongside daily reports, which makes the mutating persistence intent clear. However, it does not disclose whether existing records are overwritten, deduplicated, or merged, nor what the tool returns or requires.

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 core action is front-loaded and both sentences carry useful information: the destination/format and the two intended invocation scenarios. It is concise and structured well, though the use-case sentence is slightly verbose.

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?

The description covers purpose, destination, and typical use cases, which is good for a write tool. However, it does not clarify the minimum input requirement (at least one of keywords/themes) despite all parameters being optional in the schema, and it omits any behavior about duplicates or existing records for the same date.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The tool description adds only a high-level summary of the two input modes (keywords vs organized themes) without adding meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the action ('采集落库', write-to-database), the resource ('reports.db (rtype='invest_theme')'), and the data flow (standardize then persist). It is distinguishable from the invest_theme_* query siblings as the write/collect counterpart, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 concrete use contexts: as an automated scheduled-task ingestion entry and as the write-back point for the dashboard's theme input box after agent processing. It provides clear when-to-use guidance but does not state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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