配置本机全局插件调用采集

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), the description discloses what is actually read (real MCP call events from sessions and archived_sessions), what is stored (identifiers and timestamps only), where config lives (local persistence), and explicit non-behaviors: no model calls, no network, no auto-confirming Skill adoption. That is exactly the side-effect and privacy boundary an agent needs for a config mutation.

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?

Three tight clauses: the action first, then what enabling reads/stores, then the safety boundary. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema and a mutation annotation profile, the description covers scope, data touched, privacy, and persistence well. It is silent on what happens to already-captured data when capture is disabled and on the return shape, which would be useful for a state-changing config 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%, so the description must carry the load: it explains the enabled flag as start/stop of capture and gives the interval's valid range (5–3600 seconds), matching the schema's minimum/maximum. It does not mention the default of 10 or whether the interval matters when disabling, leaving a small 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?

States a specific verb+resource pair in '启停跨会话本地日志采集并设置 5 至 3600 秒检查间隔', identifying both the toggle and the interval knob in one clause. This configuration role is clearly distinct from siblings like record_plugin_calls (recording), query_usage (querying), and check_recording_status (status 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?

'按用户要求启停' implies the tool is invoked at the user's request, but it never states when to prefer this over check_recording_status or record_plugin_calls, nor any prerequisite (e.g., must capture be enabled before recording applies). Usage is inferable from the scope but not guided.

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