policy_timeline

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 clearly indicates a read operation ('获取') and discloses behavioral details such as monthly aggregation, inclusion of real policy documents, long-cycle nodes, and official links. It does not mention caching or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool this is sufficient.

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 dense sentence with no filler. The main action, data contents, and intended use are all included, and every clause adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the data source, aggregation approach, returned components, and purpose. The only notable gap is the ambiguity of year=null behavior, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description maps the single 'year' parameter to '某年', so the agent understands it selects the year of the timeline. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what happens when year is null or defaulted, leaving a gap in parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb '获取' with a concrete resource, '某年政策时间线数据', and details the data composition (monthly aggregated real policy documents, long-cycle nodes, official links). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like policy_search or policy_detail and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 a clear context for use: it supplies policy timeline data for rendering a dynamic frontend timeline for a given year. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative policy tools, so it lacks exclusions, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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