show_summaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys a read-only behavior through '显示/查看' and discloses the output format (one summary per line with date, keywords, and content) plus filter/limit behavior. It does not explicitly mention side effects or authentication, but the read-only language is clear enough.

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 well-organized into sections: purpose, parameters, output format, and use cases, with the core purpose front-loaded. It is economical overall, though the use-case list is slightly redundant and the mention of summary statistics does not match the line-oriented output format described.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter behavior, output format, and typical triggers. Minor gaps remain, such as how multiple filterKeywords are combined and the default ordering when limit is omitted.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes filterKeywords and limit in the same terms. The description repeats this information without adding defaults, matching rules, or examples, so it stays at the baseline rather than adding semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '显示之前记录的总结' (display previously recorded summaries). It also clarifies scope as all historical summaries, and the read-only verb clearly separates it from the sibling write tools add_summary and save_summaries.

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 gives an explicit trigger phrase (when the user asks to view previous summaries) and a bulleted list of valid use cases: reviewing previous points, finding a topic, viewing recent records. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just 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.