score_applied_strategies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the trigger condition (7 days post-adoption with neutral feedback) and the action (downgrade to negative), but lacks details on idempotence, scope, side effects, or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and action. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what it does, when it triggers, and how often (periodic). It could be slightly more complete by defining 'neutral feedback' or confirming no side effects, but overall it is sufficient.

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 0 parameters, and schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (none needed) and focuses on the tool's behavior.

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 action: downgrading strategies adopted 7 days ago with neutral feedback to negative. The verb 'downgrade' and resource 'strategies' are specific, and the condition (7 days, neutral) distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'apply_strategy' or 'feedback_strategy'.

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 mentions it should be called periodically ('应定期调用'), providing a usage pattern, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or state when not to use it. The context 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.