thought_record_thought

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 does disclose the return shape ('a thought card with parsed entities and card ID'), which is useful. However, it does not state that this persists data, whether it requires auth, or whether duplicate thoughts are deduplicated.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. The docstring formatting (indentation, 'Args:'/'Returns:') is mildly verbose but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input example and the return content, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits side-effect and persistence details, but the core invocation is well-enough specified.

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% (bare {type: string}), so the description must compensate. The example ('茅台跌到1400可以考虑买入') adds helpful meaning about what qualifies as a thought, but no format, length, or constraint guidance is given, leaving the compensation partial.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('an investment thought/idea from the user'), which cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like thought_search_memories and thought_get_thought_cards. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. 'from the user' weakly implies the trigger is user-shared thoughts, but no conditions or routing advice are given, matching the score-2 'no guidance' level.

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