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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval operation via '返回' and lists what the returned playbook covers, but it does not disclose edge cases such as unsupported platform handling or whether the output is deterministic. There is no annotation contradiction, but no deeper behavioral context is added.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main resource and then uses a colon-delimited list to enumerate the playbook contents. There is no redundancy with the schema and every element earns its place.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The main missing element is explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters, including the default platform and an example for category. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (返回) and a specific resource (single-platform content strategy playbook), and enumerates its contents: algorithm preferences, formats, duration, posting frequency, hooks, CTA, tags, and taboos. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_content_calendar and hook_framework, which are narrower in scope.

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 phrase '单个平台' makes the input scope clear, and the tool is obviously intended for retrieving a per-platform strategy playbook. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it falls just short of full explicit routing.

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