submit_work_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (create + submit), auto-filling of fields, month-dependent default behavior, and the return format (JSON with requestId). It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.

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 efficiently structured in listed sections (Args, Returns) with no fluff. Every sentence adds value: process overview, parameter details, and return format. Front-loaded with the action, then details follow logically.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it covers all parameters, the auto-fill behavior, and the return. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., authentication or existing project setup), but the auto-fill hints that context is supplied elsewhere. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to detail return values.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains report_date format (YYYY-MM-DD), work_content default logic with explicit month ranges, and project_hours default (8). This goes well beyond the schema, which only names the parameters without hints.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase '创建并提交一条研发报工' (create and submit a research work report), naming both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, which are all query/workflow-oriented, by being the only submission tool.

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 usage context is clear: it creates and submits a work report, with automatic field population. It also explains the month-based auto-selection of work content and the option to override it manually. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, though no sibling competes for this exact task.

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