zhiqi_points_rules

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

没有提供注释，描述承担了全部责任。描述中的“查看”暗示只读操作，但未明确说明无副作用或认证要求。对于无参数查询，描述提供的信息已足够，但未提及可能的限制或格式细节。

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?

单句描述，信息密度高，无冗余。直接列出了核心返回字段和用途，结构紧凑且易于快速理解。

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?

没有输出 schema，描述提供了返回字段的列表，足够代理理解工具返回什么。对于零参数简单查询，描述已相当完整，但未详细说明字段含义或格式，稍显不足。

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?

没有参数，schema 覆盖率为100%，描述无需解释参数。但描述列出了返回的字段（level/title/minEarned、maxLevel、生效时间），这为代理提供了预期结果的语义，有助于理解工具的输出。

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?

描述明确说明了动词“查看”和资源“等级规则”，并列出了具体字段（level、title、minEarned、maxLevel、生效时间），用途（向用户解释等级门槛）也很清楚，足以与积分相关工具区分。

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?

描述提供了明确的使用场景（向用户解释等级门槛），暗示了何时调用此工具，但没有明确排除其他工具（如 points_summary 或 points_ledger）。由于兄弟工具较多，缺乏排除性说明略有不足，但上下文已经足够清晰。

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