xinchao_event

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

沒有 annotations，描述承擔揭露行為的責任；它說明了副作用（更新驅動力、念頭池和疲憊狀態），並透過參數描述補充「不保存全文」。但未提及回應格式、操作是否可逆、是否有頻率限制等細節，透明度仍有不足。

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?

描述僅兩句話，第一句說明做什麼，第二句說明何時用，資訊密度高且無冗餘，符合前重後輕的結構。

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?

工具本身簡單，只有 2 個參數且其中一個有枚舉，描述已涵蓋使用時機和核心作用。由於沒有輸出 schema，未說明返回值或失敗行為，但整體對於 agent 正確選擇和呼叫該工具已足夠充分。

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?

輸入 schema 已有 event_type 的枚舉和 content_summary 的簡短描述，描述本身未補充參數語意。枚舉值已提供足夠選項，content_summary 的用途也清楚，因此無需過度依賴描述，但描述未增加額外的語意層次。

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?

描述明確指出工具功能是回傳一次互動事件並更新驅動力、念頭池和疲憊狀態，使用具體動詞「回傳」和資源「事件」。雖未明確與兄弟工具（xinchao_context、xinchao_status 等）做出區隔，但名稱和行為已足夠辨識其定位。

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?

描述清楚指示「每次對話後調用」，提供了明確的使用時機。但未說明與其他工具（如 xinchao_settle、xinchao_mood）的替換或排除情境，缺少 when-not-to-use 的指引。

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