获取运营概览

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by explicitly stating that no external services are accessed and that the summary draws on local draft state and recent manual metrics.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every phrase earns its place: what is summarized, what data is included, and the external-service boundary. There is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only summary tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the covered data and the local-only constraint. It does not detail the output shape, but no output schema exists and the word '汇总' implies a high-level summary.

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 description has no parameter burden. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter set, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.

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 uses a specific verb '汇总' (summarize) and names the exact scope: '本地草稿状态与最近手工指标'. It also states '不访问外部服务', which helps distinguish it from tools that interact with external services or that record metrics rather than summarize them.

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 gives clear context for the tool's use — summarizing local draft status and recent manual metrics without external access. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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