policy_collect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only states 'whole-site collection' and the source list. It does not disclose whether the tool writes/caches data, refreshes incrementally or fully, or how pagination affects the collection.

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 phrase with no filler and the core subject is front-loaded. It is under-specified, but it earns credit for being efficient and readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape may be covered elsewhere, but the description leaves the agent without usage timing, parameter meaning, or behavioral expectations. Among many policy_* siblings, this is not enough context to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 sole parameter max_pages is undocumented in both the schema and the description; schema description coverage is 0%. The description provides no meaning for max_pages, such as units, scope, or how it limits the crawl.

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 gives a concrete action (采集/collect) and a specific resource: policy documents from six named official sources. It is clear, but it never explicitly differentiates this collector from sibling query tools such as policy_search or policy_detail.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative names. The agent must infer from the verb 'collect' and the sibling names that this is a batch ingestion tool rather than a search/query tool.

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