mkt_cadence

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does assert read-only behavior and sketches the output rows, but it never says how `facts` is consumed, what the `start` anchor means, or whether anything is persisted; for a tool with a free-form nested input that is a real gap.

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?

One compact sentence with the output artifact front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it comes at the cost of the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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 a free-form nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the contract of `facts` and the shape of the returned table. It names the output columns but leaves the input side essentially undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0% across all three parameters, and `facts` is an unconstrained nested object. The description implies a four-week window (relevant to `start`) but does not explain the expected shape of `facts`, the date format of `start`, or how `actions_per_week` (default 20) interacts with the four-week slicing.

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 does say what the tool produces: a four-week action table whose rows carry an owner, manual minutes, and an acceptance artifact, and it labels the operation read-only. But the verb is nominal ("只读落地设计") and nothing distinguishes it from planning siblings such as mkt_sprint_plan, mkt_goal_plan, or mkt_action, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternative among the many planning-related siblings. Only the "只读" tag hints at intended use, which is not enough to route between this and mkt_sprint_plan or mkt_workflow.

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