简体中文交互反馈

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it covers the important behaviors: it blocks for user feedback, the timeout is fixed at 172800 seconds, and it must be invoked at the end of every answer. It could additionally state the precise consequence of a timeout or what feedback is returned, but the core blocking/communication behavior 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 short and front-loads the core purpose. There is some redundancy between '唯一沟通渠道' and '这是你与用户之间的唯一沟通渠道', but the additional '每次回答结束前都要调用' clause adds an important mandatory-frequency fact, so overall it is efficient.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the operational context an agent needs: when to call it, what it does, and its fixed timeout. Optional parameter semantics are already in the schema; return-value behavior is implied by '等待反馈' and is not a critical gap for invocation.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond noting the fixed timeout, which the schema also encodes via const/default. This meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 names the action ('展示工作摘要并等待反馈') on the resource (user feedback), and marks it as the only communication channel before a final answer. Among the sibling tools—file, git, exec, codegraph, plan—none shares this interactive user-feedback role, so it is unambiguously distinguishable.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call the tool before every final answer and states that it is the only channel for communicating with the user. This is a strong, unconditional usage signal that leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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