执行记录复盘

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds a specific behavioral guarantee: it will not misjudge an execution receipt as business-effective, which is beyond annotation coverage and provides useful context. However, it doesn't describe the output format or other operational behaviors, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the behavioral nuance is efficiently added in the second. This is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 simple tool with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose but lacks critical details: no output schema exists, and the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a classification, a status enum, or a boolean). Domain-specific terms like '缺回执' are used without explanation. The behavioral guarantee is useful but doesn't fill the completeness gap.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not mention project_id at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema detail. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should at least reference it to confirm the input requirement. This is a clear gap given the low coverage.

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: it determines a project's execution status (insufficient information, not executed, missing receipt, or ready for manual review). It uses a specific verb '确定' (determine) and a clear resource (project execution record). The added note about not misjudging execution receipts as business-effective further clarifies its function. It is distinguishable from siblings like decision_review, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when assessing project execution state, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate. With many siblings, this lack of routing guidance is a significant gap.

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