auth_reset_guard

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'release' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it clears all risk control events, requires elevated permissions, or is irreversible). This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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, succinct sentence that gets directly to the point. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, with no extraneous words.

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 simplicity (0 params, output schema present), the description is minimally viable. It clearly states the action but lacks broader context such as when to invoke it or what the output schema contains. The description could be enhanced with a note about typical usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning to the empty schema by clarifying what the tool does, which is sufficient since no parameters need explanation.

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 '手动解除风控熔断状态' clearly states a specific action (manually reset) on a specific resource (risk control circuit breaker state). It distinguishes itself from siblings like auth_login and auth_status, which are about authentication flow rather than resetting a blocking state.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts such as 'when the system is in a circuit breaker state' or any exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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