generate_summary_report

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context: the return format (JSON with Markdown) and a critical constraint on date_range (must be an object, not an integer). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, any dependencies on data availability, or error behavior, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 concise and well-structured with a summary line, Args section, and Returns section. It front-loads the purpose. Minor redundancy exists between '每日/每周摘要生成器' and '自动生成热点摘要报告', but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks usage guidance (when to use vs alternatives), behavioral side-effect disclosure, and clarity on how it differs from similar summary/aggregation tools, making it only partially complete for an AI agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. report_type is explained as daily/weekly; date_range gets a format specification, an example, and an explicit warning about object type. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could be even richer (e.g., allowed date formats or range limits).

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 generates a daily/weekly hot-topic summary report, using a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('summary report'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the daily/weekly scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like aggregate_news or analyze_topic_trend.

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 through the report_type parameter (daily/weekly) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, no alternative names, and no context such as prerequisites or typical scenarios. The only guidance is the parameter format, not usage context.

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