agent_get_preference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a read operation with cross-session persistence, but does not elaborate on error behavior, performance, or authorization needs. The basic safety profile (read-only) is clear, but additional behavioral details are missing.

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 a single line with front-loaded tags that categorize the tool. It is efficient and contains no filler. While the use of Chinese and tags may introduce slight noise for an English-only agent, it remains concise and direct.

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?

The tool has low complexity with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the essential behavior, and the schema details the parameter. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON object), which would aid completeness. Overall adequate for a simple read operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100% and includes a clear description of the 'key' parameter: 'preference key name, returns all if not filled'. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 it reads persistent preferences of the agent that are retained across sessions. The verb '读取' (read) and the resource 'Agent持久化偏好' are specific. It is distinguishable from the sibling tool 'agent_set_preference' which would be a write operation.

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 implies usage (read preferences) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_set_preference. There is no mention of when not to use it or contextual conditions. The agent must infer from the tool name and sibling names.

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