徵象歷史

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that history is returned, but says nothing about ordering, what each record contains, units, pagination/truncation behavior, failure conditions, or the shape of the response. For a read tool, this is thin and leaves significant unknowns.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It omits essential behavioral and parameter details that a 1-2 sentence description could easily and cheaply contain to earn its value.

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?

While the tool is simple (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the absence of any output schema or annotation coverage raises the burden on the description. An agent cannot tell from this text what the response format contains, which a history-retrieval tool should specify. The lack of return-format guidance makes it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 for the undocumented `n` parameter. The phrase '最近 N 筆' weakly implies `n` is a count of records, but it does not state the default of 20, the min/max bounds, or that `n` is optional. The description barely adds meaning beyond the schema and fails to fully compensate for the zero coverage gap.

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 states the tool returns the most recent N heart rate history records ('最近 N 筆心跳歷史'), which is a specific verb+resource that conveys historical data. It distinguishes itself from heartbeat_now and vitals_latest by implying a historical series rather than a live reading, though it never names those siblings or clarifies the exact boundary.

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?

No guidance exists on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vitals_latest or heartbeat_now. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over its siblings, leaving the selection decision entirely to inference.

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