记录复习结果

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates FSRS scheduling and that 'skipped' does not modify the schedule. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as idempotency handling, required-field dependencies, or error conditions.

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 sentence that packs the core action, outcome semantics, and a usage note without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses efficient enumeration.

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 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, so the description needs to cover the essentials for correct invocation. It only addresses the 'outcome' enum and skipped behavior, leaving the remaining six parameters completely unaddressed. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 by explaining parameters. It thoroughly defines the 'outcome' enum values, but does not explain the purpose or format of other parameters like 'number', 'idempotency_key', 'reviewed_at', 'duration_seconds', 'response_markdown', or 'notes'. This leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 verb and resource: '追加一次真实复习结果并更新 FSRS' (append a real review result and update FSRS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle problems, review sheets, exports, or status changes.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use certain outcome values, e.g., '普通答对应使用 correct，不要自动判为 easy' and explains that 'skipped' only records without altering scheduling. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, though the purpose is unique among siblings.

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