盘点库存

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds value by stating that the operation is simulated, time-consuming, and reports progress incrementally. This is consistent with the annotations and gives the agent a clear sense of runtime and output behavior.

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 efficient sentence that states what the tool does and its key behavioral trait. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

With an output schema, annotations, and a single self-explanatory parameter, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple simulation tool. However, it omits explicit guidance on how the progress reporting is delivered and when an agent should choose this tool over siblings.

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% and the description does not explicitly explain delay_seconds. However, the phrase '耗时盘点' implies the delay parameter controls simulated duration, and the parameter name plus default value make its purpose reasonably inferable.

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 a specific verb ('simulate') and resource ('inventory count'), and adds the distinct behavior of reporting progress step by step. This clearly separates audit_inventory from the book-focused siblings search_books, checkout_book, and return_book.

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 implies the tool is for simulating an inventory audit, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. An agent must infer usage context from the word 'simulate'.

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