生成复习 PDF

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that it freezes the current version of selected questions and does not update FSRS. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as whether it is asynchronous, whether it mutates problem records, or how the returned object relates to the export workflow.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise mode-specific detail and side-effect note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 description covers the core purpose and an important non-mutating behavior, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, given the nested request parameters, lack of annotations, and sibling export/status tools, it does not fully contextualize how this tool fits into the export lifecycle or whether the PDF generation is synchronous.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the `scheduled` mode and `horizon_days`, which is helpful. But it leaves several parameters like `numbers`, `tags`, `subjects`, `max_questions`, and `idempotency_key` unexplained, and the `all_active` and `numbers` modes are not clarified.

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 the tool's specific action: freezing the current versions of selected problems and generating an A4 review PDF containing only the questions. It also describes the scheduled mode's selection criteria, distinguishing this creation-focused tool from the sibling read/update/export tools.

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 by explaining what scheduled mode selects and noting that generating the sheet does not update FSRS, which hints at a boundary. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools like record_review or mention when not to use this tool.

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