capture_conversation_signals

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

无注解，描述承担了行为披露责任：明确说明会分析文本、捕获信号并'记录为待反思观察'，且列出四类信号的具体识别规则。行为本质清晰，但未提及返回值、重复调用副作用等细节。

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?

描述结构紧凑：先说明核心功能，再逐项列举信号类型并附示例，最后给出调用条件，信息密度高且无冗余内容。

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?

工具复杂度较低且无输出schema；描述已覆盖用途、信号定义、触发时机和输入格式。虽未说明返回内容，但对正确选择与调用该工具而言已足够完整。

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?

输入schema覆盖率为100%，conversation_text和auto_record的参数含义已由schema描述清楚；描述本身没有额外补充参数语义，因此给予基线3分。

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?

描述明确使用'捕获'作为动词、'对话信号'作为对象，并具体列出四类信号（complaint、emphasis、preference、frustration）及示例，功能边界清晰，能与record_observation等泛化记录工具区分。

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?

给出了明确的调用触发条件：'用户话语包含明显纠正/强调语气时应调用'，提供了使用场景指引；但未显式说明何时不应调用或与record_observation等替代工具的对比。

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