增量导入本机使用信号

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

The description adds real context beyond annotations: it discloses the write target (usage-index.json in a separate persistent data directory), what is deliberately not stored (chat body text), and that it stays offline, consistent with openWorldHint=false and a non-readOnly write. It does not say whether the index is merged or replaced, or what happens if the log directory is missing.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first states the read/extract action, the second states the write target and the two negative guarantees. The most important constraint (writes a separate index, no chat content) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, the extraction semantics, and the persistence side effect. It leaves the return value unstated (e.g., counts of newly indexed signals), which the agent cannot recover from anywhere else.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does clarify that scope selection (which sessions) is implicit in the machine's own logs rather than parameterized.

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 names a concrete verb and resources: read local Codex sessions/archived_sessions logs, incrementally extract explicit markers and read requests, and write a usage-index.json. That is far more specific than the title alone and clearly separates it from query_usage or record_plugin_calls, though it never names a sibling to contrast with explicitly.

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 word 'incremental' implies this can be re-run to refresh the index, and the write target implies it should precede a query, but no when-to-use/when-not condition or ordering against query_usage is stated. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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