zhiqi_points_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool echoes earnedCumulative, earnedCheckSum, and selfConsistent results, and clarifies that from/to are business days. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any permission requirements. The term '统计' implies a read-only query, but this is not made explicit.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose (classification by six categories) and lists the returned fields. It contains no filler and every clause adds information. The structure is efficient and clear.

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 has no output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the main functionality, return fields, and parameter semantics. It lacks a detailed output structure (e.g., how the categories are presented) and does not mention error conditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it with appropriate dates. Some differentiation from related points tools could be added, but it is not critically incomplete.

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 0% and the schema only provides types without descriptions. The description adds that from/to are business days, which is meaningful, but it does not specify date format, constraints, or the effect of omitting them (both are optional). This partial clarification helps but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it classifies and counts points by six specific source categories (initial, survival, taskEarned, taskSpent, penaltyOut, penaltyIn) and returns three computed fields (earnedCumulative, earnedCheckSum, selfConsistent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zhiqi_points or zhiqi_points_ledger, which likely provide different views or granularity.

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 usage when a summary by source category is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over zhiqi_points or zhiqi_points_ledger. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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