zhiji_feedback

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

Describes the behavioral impact in detail: feedback enters the self-evolution reward signal (implicitPositiveRate) and performs Q-value reinforcement on recently retrieved memory blocks. It explains the effect of the 'weak' parameter (halving intensity). No annotations were provided, so the description fully carries the burden of transparency.

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 concise yet comprehensive, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing effects and parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The structure is logical: purpose, mechanism, parameter notes, and usage caveat.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers input semantics and behavioral effects well. It lacks explicit mention of the return value (e.g., success/failure), but this is minor since the focus is on submitting feedback. Overall, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'weak' parameter's effect (halving intensity for uncertain feedback) and the meaning of 'up' and 'down' ratings in the context of memory reinforcement. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting explicit feedback (up/down) for the last memory recall/answer quality. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zhiji_memory_search and zhiji_workspace_assemble, which are for searching or assembling memories, not feedback.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes that for precise feedback on specific memory blocks, one should first call zhiji_workspace_assemble or zhiji_memory_search. This helps the agent choose the right tool.

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