qhrisk_patterns_show

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.