查看已沉淀的优势

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what is returned (the four-step chain and a completeness statistic), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention ordering, pagination, or permissions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the output shape second. No filler, no repetition of the name or title.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate because it sketches the return content. It still omits the read-only guarantee and any caveats about result volume, which matter when nothing else documents the tool's behavior.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to disambiguate and no schema-level documentation is needed. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 gives a specific verb (列出) and resource (已沉淀的个人优势), and even previews the returned structure (完整的四步链条与链条完整度统计). It is clearly a read/list operation, but it never names or contrasts itself with the close siblings strength_mine, strength_save, or strength_delete.

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 qualifier 已沉淀 (already accumulated/saved) implicitly tells the agent this reads stored strengths rather than mining new ones, which is the key distinction from strength_mine. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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