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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does enumerate what is returned (schema, global Header, context, payload, options hints), which is genuinely useful, but it never states that this is a read-only lookup with no side effects or whether the lookup can fail for unknown task/action pairs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It packs the return contents into one clause efficiently, though the enumeration of five return elements is dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the description still outlines the return shape. Combined with fully documented parameters, an agent has enough to invoke it, with only the when-to-use dimension left implicit.

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 gives concrete examples for both task (family_space.manage_room) and action (create, list, delete, get_house_detail). The description adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (返回) and a well-defined resource (the param schema, global Header, local context, payload and options for a given task/action). It is clearly distinguishable in kind from siblings like execute_task or list_actions, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus execute_task or list_actions, nor any prerequisites. The use case (look up a schema before executing) must be inferred entirely from the purpose, so guidance is effectively absent.

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