每日报告-历史

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does clearly indicate a read-only, historical retrieval operation, which is the core behavior. However, it omits details about result ordering, limits, output format, or behavior when rtype is empty, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence with the main verb and scope front-loaded. There is no filler, though the vagueness of '某类报告' slightly reduces its overall usefulness.

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 two-parameter read tool, the description is too thin. It does not specify valid rtype values, reference related tools like report_types for discovering those values, or clarify default/empty behavior. This incompleteness is especially risky given the many sibling report tools.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It gives a partial meaning for limit ('最近 limit 份') but does not explain rtype beyond '某类报告', leaving valid values and default behavior unexplained.

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 clear action (读取/read) on a resource (某类报告/type of report) with an explicit scope (最近 limit 份/historical backtracking). It is understandable, but '某类报告' remains vague and does not explicitly tie the purpose to the rtype parameter or differentiate it from sibling tools such as report_latest and report_by_date.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like report_latest, report_by_date, or report_types. Given the large sibling list, the absence of routing cues leaves an agent to infer usage on its own.

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