qhrisk_recheck

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.