搜索用户认知记忆

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing confidence-based ordering, pagination, empty-result semantics (total=0 empty list is not an error), and the include_dynamic default. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 well-organized into purpose, usage guidance, args, return shape, examples, and error handling—each section earns its place. Core purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the length is appropriate given the tool's complexity.

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?

The description documents all parameters, the exact return object structure, pagination behavior, example queries, and error semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing, and the usage context is clear.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with natural-language examples mapping to keyword/domain parameters and restates all defaults and filters. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the Args list says 'emotion' while the schema enum uses 'emotional', which could mislead an agent.

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 ('检索' = retrieve) and resource ('用户认知记忆'), and clarifies it returns relevant memory entries sorted by confidence with pagination. The '当对话涉及...' clause clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/update/forget tools. An agent can tell this is the retrieval tool among the siblings.

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 explicitly lists trigger conditions (historical preferences, identity, ongoing projects, past events) and instructs to call this tool before answering to avoid guessing. It does not explicitly contrast with cognitive_list or cognitive_stats, so it misses a full when-not/alternative comparison, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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