按期间查询使用信号

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which is otherwise puzzling for a 'query' tool; the description earns credit by explaining why — when auto-capture is enabled it first incrementally ingests local host call events, i.e. it has a write side effect. It also discloses the interval semantics (start inclusive, end exclusive). It stops short of saying what gets persisted or how much data is ingested.

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 compact clauses: the operation first, the time-format constraint second. Every sentence carries information, though the ingestion clause is packed densely enough that its conditional nature is easy to skim past.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what comes back (index entries? ledger rows? ingested event counts) and whether results are paged or scoped to the interval. It also leaves the `timeZone` parameter and the trigger conditions for ingestion unexplained, which is thin for a three-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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. It does add real meaning for `from`/`to` (timezone required, half-open interval), but `timeZone` is never explained — whether it overrides the offset in the timestamps or is a fallback — leaving one of three parameters ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb ('查询') and names the resources queried — the Skill index and the plugin ledger — plus the side effect of ingesting host call events. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling (e.g. import_usage, record_plugin_calls) to delineate its scope, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 clause about auto-capture describes an internal conditional ('启用自动采集时先增量接收…') rather than when an agent should choose this tool over import_usage or record_plugin_calls. Usage is implied by the word '查询' but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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