qhrisk_review

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.