situation_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only aggregation, whether it requires authentication, how the report is assembled, or any cost/latency characteristics — a notable gap for a summarizing tool.

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 compact line that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the three content categories. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing information 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 parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the parameter's effect and the shape of the returned report. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict what a call returns or how workspace_id changes results.

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?

There is one parameter, workspace_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it directly; '活跃的工作区' refers to report content rather than the parameter's role. It also doesn't clarify the default behavior when no workspace_id is supplied (0 required parameters).

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 names concrete content the report covers (recent key events, unresolved issues, active workspaces), which goes slightly beyond restating the name 'situation_report'. However it never states the verb/resource clearly, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling recent_events, which appears to cover a subset.

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 indication of when to invoke this tool versus report_done, recent_events, or focus_change. The phrase '随时汇报' (report at any time) implies a general-purpose status query but gives no trigger conditions or exclusions.

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