每日报告-类型列表

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 已入库 (already ingested into the database) adds useful freshness context, and a zero-parameter listing operation is inherently low-risk. However, the description does not disclose output format, ordering, or absence of side effects, leaving minor behavioral gaps.

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?

A single short sentence containing only the essential action and scope. Every word earns its place, and the verb is front-loaded. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the burden is modest, but the description still omits useful context: what the returned report types look like and how this tool chains with report_latest/report_history/report_by_date. These gaps leave the agent to guess the tool's role in the report workflow.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline of 4, the description correctly avoids inventing parameter-related content that does not exist.

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 specific verb (列出/list) and resource (reports 表中已入库的报告类型), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the report-related siblings report_latest, report_history, and report_by_date, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description never explains when to call this tool versus report_latest/report_history/report_by_date, nor does it indicate that this tool likely serves as a precursor for selecting a report type to use with those siblings. Context must be inferred entirely by the agent.

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