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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It describes what the tool checks but does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it has side effects, what its output format is, or how it handles invalid ledger input. Some behavior is implied by '对账', but not explicitly stated.

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 one concise sentence and front-loads the key concept '台账对账'. There is no verbosity or wasted content, though the brevity contributes to missing contextual details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description needs to provide substantially more context. It omits input format, expected output/return values, usage guidance, and behavioral side effects, making it only minimally usable for selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'ledger' parameter beyond implying it contains judgments. It gives no format, structure, or expected content details, leaving the agent to guess what the ledger string should look like.

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 a specific verb ('对账' / reconcile) and resource ('台账' / ledger), and gives concrete check criteria: whether each judgment records what problem it solves and what happens if removed. It distinguishes itself from qhrisk_ledger_show by being a check/validation action rather than a display action, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to audit ledger judgments against the stated criteria. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no alternative suggestions, and no context comparing it with qhrisk_review or qhrisk_recheck.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only 'view' operation, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, requires special permissions, or how the ledger content is returned. For a tool with no annotation safety net, this is thin behavioral disclosure.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states the resource and key content efficiently. It is appropriately concise, but it sacrifices necessary parameter and usage details, so it is slightly under-specified rather than optimally informative.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to be complete. An agent cannot determine valid `ledger` values, what `md` toggles, or how this view differs from qhrisk_ledger_check. The core purpose is clear, but invocation-critical context is missing.

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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The required string `ledger` is only inferable as the ledger to view, while the optional boolean `md` is completely opaque. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a concrete verb, 查看 ('view'), with a specific resource, 判定台账 ('judgment ledger'), and enumerates what the ledger shows: whether each step was kept, deleted, or simplified, and its review status. This makes the tool's function clear and differentiates it from action-oriented siblings like qhrisk_simplify, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named qhrisk_ledger_check.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus qhrisk_ledger_check, qhrisk_review, or qhrisk_patterns_show. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over a sibling. The only usage signal is the implicit 'view' verb.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only discusses the concept of silent mistakes and says nothing about side effects, return values, how the ledger is processed, or whether the operation is a read, analysis, or report.

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 prose is short, front-loaded, and stylistically sharp, with no filler sentences. However, the compactness comes at the expense of operational information, so this is closer to under-specification than to effective tool-description concision.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a required `ledger` parameter, the description should explain the tool's role in the risk-review workflow and the expected ledger input. It does neither, so the agent has no complete basis for selecting or invoking this tool rather than siblings like qhrisk_review or qhrisk_ledger_check.

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 single required parameter `ledger` has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. An agent cannot determine what format or content is expected for `ledger` or how it relates to the two mistake types.

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 defines '虚删' and '虚留' as mistake categories but never states an action or resource: it does not say that the tool checks, classifies, or reports mistakes in a ledger. It resembles a topical gloss on the name 'qhrisk_mistakes' rather than an operational definition, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like qhrisk_ledger_check or qhrisk_review.

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 is given about when to call this tool or when to prefer alternatives. The text explains an error taxonomy but provides no invocation condition, workflow context, or criteria for choosing this tool over the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It describes what content is displayed but does not state whether this is read-only, whether it has side effects, what the output format is, or whether any authentication is required. '展示' implies a safe display operation, but that is not made explicit.

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 one compact, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the three content categories. The bolded self-check question feature is a useful, well-structured detail without wasted words.

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?

Despite the simple interface, the required parameter is completely unspecified, making the tool effectively uncallable without guessing. No output schema exists to compensate, and no usage context is supplied. The description covers the tool's output content but omits the input contract entirely.

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 single required parameter 'patterns' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what value should be passed or what format it expects. An agent has no way to know whether 'patterns' is a category name, a filter, a list, or a free-text query. This is a critical 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 clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: '展示无用功模式库' (display the useless-work pattern library), and breaks down the content shown. It is distinct enough from siblings like qhrisk_simplify or qhrisk_review, although it does not explicitly differentiate itself by name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its seven siblings. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are provided, so an agent must infer when this display tool is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the check's purpose and a warning about unreliable conclusions, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or whether it modifies the input plan. Key operational traits are missing, leaving the agent to guess about side effects and output 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, readable sentence. The main action and resource are front-loaded ('计划自检'), followed by the specific criteria and a consequence. Every clause carries meaning, and there is no redundant or filler 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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must explain both invocation and interpretation. It explains the check criteria and warns about consequences, but it never states what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail, issue list) or whether the plan file is altered. For an agent to correctly call and use the tool, this missing return-value and side-effect information is a significant gap.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter 'plan' as '计划 JSON 的路径' (path of plan JSON), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter-level details, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('自检' / self-check) and resource ('计划' / plan), and enumerates concrete check criteria: whether target criteria are clearly written, and whether each step answers 'who it serves' and 'what would happen without it'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qhrisk_review or qhrisk_mistakes, which appear to serve different review or error-analysis purposes.

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 this tool should be used before relying on a plan, by warning that plans failing the self-check yield untrustworthy conclusions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings such as qhrisk_review, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core behavior—recompute the current plan and point out flipped determinations—which is genuinely informative. However, it does not explain how the required ledger is used, whether anything is mutated, or what kind of output the agent should expect.

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 compact and front-loads the main action ('复核：拿当前计划重算一遍'). The second clause adds a useful impact example rather than filler. It is slightly cryptic, but every part earns its place in a short space.

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 four parameters, two required, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It leaves the role of the ledger, optional inputs, output format, and relationship to sibling tools unexplained, so an agent cannot fully determine correct usage.

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, but it only loosely maps to 'plan' via '当前计划'. The required 'ledger' parameter is completely unexplained, and optional parameters 'today' and 'patterns' receive no semantic clarification whatsoever.

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 a specific action: re-run the current plan and identify which judgments flipped. This is a clear verb-and-resource statement, not a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as qhrisk_plan_check, qhrisk_review, or qhrisk_ledger_check, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example about changing '它服务于谁' implies a usage context: after modifying the served party, use recheck to see downstream determinations flip. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named, so the agent must infer the trigger scenario.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful semantics by defining what each outcome value means (stood=held up, broke=had problems, used=served a purpose, unused=never used). However, it never discloses what the call actually does — whether it writes to the ledger, mutates the plan, requires prior state, or what happens on success/failure.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('回看一个环节') and then efficiently maps the two situational cases to their outcome values. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler. It is slightly instruction-like rather than declarative, but the density is good.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is under-equipped. It explains only the outcome vocabulary and leaves critical context missing: what ledger/item_id reference, whether the call persists data, how this step fits the overall review workflow, and what the response looks like.

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 all 6 parameters. It enriches only the 'outcome' parameter by defining its four allowed values and their meanings — valuable, since the schema has no enums. But ledger, item_id, plan_id, by, and note are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving most of the input surface undocumented.

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 a specific action ('回看一个环节' — review a step) and defines the exact outcome vocabulary (stood/broke/used/unused) that makes this tool's function concrete. It is distinct from the sibling tools, which check plans, simplify, show patterns/ledgers, or recheck — recording a review outcome for a single step is a different operation. It loses a point because it never explicitly names what the tool does beyond 'review' (e.g., record into the ledger).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling alternatives are mentioned. The description only implies a workflow context: after a step was deleted/simplified vs kept, you fill in its outcome. An agent must infer that this tool is used during a post-simplification review pass; there is no routing information relative to qhrisk_simplify, qhrisk_ledger_check, or qhrisk_recheck.

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

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

没有 annotations，描述承担了全部行为披露责任。它说明了分析逻辑和产出类别，但没有披露是否有副作用、是否写入 ledger、返回什么、是否只读。ledger 参数的存在暗示可能记录判定结果，但描述本身没有提及这一行为。

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?

描述通过破折号列出四类结果，并用一句话给出判据，结构清晰且没有空话。整体长度适中，信息密度高，但开头的'核心工具'标注更多是定位而非功能信息，略可精简。

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?

在无输出 schema、无 annotations、5 个参数且仅有 40% 覆盖率的条件下，描述没有足够支撑安全调用。缺少返回值说明、plan 的输入结构、ledger 写入副作用以及 pattern 匹配的触发条件，导致调用者仍需外部知识才能正确使用。

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 描述覆盖率只有 40%，而描述没有按参数名解释含义。它引入了'目标'和'成本'等概念，但并未映射到 plan、by、today 等参数；唯一的必填参数 plan 的内容和格式完全没有被解释。

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?

描述明确了核心动作：追溯每个环节的必要性并产出精简方案，并列出了四类具体输出（无用功、去掉无差别、换更轻做法、必需最短链）。它不是同义反复，且能被一个具体动词和资源所界定；不过它没有明确对比兄弟工具，因此不是满分。

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?

描述隐含了使用时机：当需要精简方案时，用'是否连得到目标'作为唯一判据，成本只用于排序。但它没有显式说明何时不该用、也没有点名替代工具（如 qhrisk_plan_check 或 qhrisk_recheck），使用边界靠推断。

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