查询错题

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about default sorting and that the response includes scoring components and reasons, which is non-obvious. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., read-only nature), pagination behavior, or any limitations, leaving some 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and filters, and adds the key behavioral detail about default ordering and return fields. Every sentence provides value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple filters, sorting, pagination), the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the main search dimensions and default sort, but doesn't mention limit/offset or other sort options. However, since an output schema is present, not explaining return values is acceptable. The description is adequate but could be more complete for a tool with this many parameters.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It lists the filter dimensions (text, number, subject, tag, type, status, due time) which maps to most schema properties, but it omits parameters like sort, limit, and offset, and does not explain their usage or formats. Thus, it partially compensates but is not exhaustive.

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 purpose: searching for problems (错题) using various criteria like text, number, subject, tag, type, status, or due date. It uses a specific verb '查询' (search) and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_problem by indicating it is a search/filter operation.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when you need to search problems by any of the listed filters. It also mentions the default sorting behavior (by current week's priority), which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it's slightly short of a 5.

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