interactive_persona

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions '自动选择合适的人格进行逐步分析' (automatically selects appropriate personas for step-by-step analysis), which implies some decision-making behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits: what criteria are used for selection, whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what the analysis output looks like, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese: '智能人格协作分析 - 根据当前对话上下文自动选择合适的人格进行逐步分析'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('智能人格协作分析') and follows with context and action. Every part earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 complexity (involves automatic persona selection and analysis), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and context but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that performs analysis, more information on what the analysis entails would be helpful, but the absence of parameters simplifies the context.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to compensate for parameter documentation. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond the schema.

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: '智能人格协作分析 - 根据当前对话上下文自动选择合适的人格进行逐步分析' (Intelligent persona collaborative analysis - automatically selects appropriate personas based on current conversation context for step-by-step analysis). It specifies the verb '自动选择' (automatically selects) and resource '人格' (personas), with the context of '对话上下文' (conversation context). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_personas or summon_persona, which appear to be related to persona management.

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 implies usage context: '根据当前对话上下文' (based on current conversation context) suggests this tool should be used when analyzing ongoing dialogue. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_personas (which likely lists personas) or summon_persona (which might invoke a specific persona). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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