generate_summary_report

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool outputs a JSON report with Markdown content. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, has side effects (e.g., creating storage), requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise with a header line and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the date_range explanation could be slightly more compact. No redundant or vague statements.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the input parameters adequately but misses usage guidance and behavioral context. The tool is relatively simple (2 optional params), so completeness is moderate. The return format is mentioned, so the agent understands what to expect.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning. It explains report_type as 'daily' or 'weekly', and date_range as a specific object format with an example and a warning that it must be an object. This compensates well for the sparse schema, though no constraints like allowed values for report_type are given beyond the parameter type.

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 that the tool generates daily/weekly summary reports ('每日/每周摘要生成器 - 自动生成热点摘要报告'). The verb 'generate' and the resource 'summary report' are specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like aggregate_news or analyze_data_insights, the distinct output (summary report in Markdown) implies a unique purpose.

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 only mentions the tool generates daily or weekly summaries. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., aggregate_news for raw news, analyze_topic_trend for trends), nor any conditions or exclusions. The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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