discover_cognitive_shifts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the output is a set of candidates, not final decisions, and that user confirmation is expected ('需用户确认'). However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what the 'recent' candidate notion means behaviorally, or how the tool treats records beyond the database-wide scan.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose, which is good. However, the second clause, '较近记录只是 recent 候选，需用户确认', is awkward and ambiguous, mixing languages and leaving the exact meaning of 'recent 候选' unclear. It is concise in length but not in clarity.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is too thin. It covers the general purpose but fails to explain the meaning of 'cognitive shifts', how 'recent candidates' relate to the full-result set, when to use it over find_change_candidates, or what the 'limit' parameter controls. The output schema exists, so return-value structure does not need elaboration, but the behavioral and usage gaps remain significant.

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 never mentions the only parameter, 'limit'. The tool name and phrase '全库' imply a scan, but there is no explanation that limit caps the number of returned candidates or how the default of 5 behaves. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('discover') against a specific resource ('entire database') with a clear object ('potentially overlooked change candidates'). It gives some scoping ('全库', the whole database), which helps differentiate from sibling tools, though it never explicitly compares itself to find_change_candidates or clarifies the relationship between 'cognitive shifts' and 'change candidates'.

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 phrase '需用户确认' hints that results require user confirmation, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like find_change_candidates or get_topic_timeline. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, so an agent is left to infer usage context.

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