Manto — 馒头新闻

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a creation and mentions 'passwordless', which hints at the auth mechanism, but it does not describe side effects, email verification, idempotency, duplicate-email behavior, or any required permissions. Basic mutation semantics are present, but significant behavioral context 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word adds meaning, making it appropriately sized and structurally effective.

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 the simple schema and sibling context, the description is too thin. It lacks any information about what 'passwordless' means in practice, what happens after account creation, error cases, or return values. An agent would likely need to inspect external docs or experiment to invoke it confidently.

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 for the email parameter. It does not mention email at all, nor explain how or why it is used. The agent is left to infer that email identifies the account from the parameter name alone.

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 'Create a passwordless Manto account' uses a specific verb (create) and resource (passwordless Manto account), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_account or create_recharge. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 description implies its usage: when you need to create a passwordless Manto account, call this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. The intended context is clear but not elaborated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the tool creates something, with no mention of side effects, prerequisites, currency handling, idempotency, or error behavior.

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 sentence with no filler. The core action and target are stated immediately, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It leaves unanswered important context such as whether the email must reference an existing account, what a successful response looks like, and any monetary constraints.

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 adds meaning to email ('for an account email') but says nothing about amount_cents, its units, valid ranges, or how it relates to the recharge.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('recharge order'), and clarifies that the order is tied to an account identified by email. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_account and get_recharge.

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 wording implies this tool is used when a recharge order needs to be created for an account. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over create_account or get_recharge, nor does it state any exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Get', which implies read-only behavior, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, data freshness, pagination, or any other behavioral trait. The description does not go beyond what the name already suggests.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the three data categories. Every word contributes directly to understanding, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, and the description does name the return categories. However, it does not clarify how 'recent content' relates to sibling tools like list_account_articles, nor does it describe the response format, leaving some ambiguity for tool selection.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. With no parameters to document, the description is not required to explain parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('account'), and specifies the data returned: quota, balance, and recent content. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like lookup_account or list_account_articles, but the scope is still concrete enough to understand the tool's primary function.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lookup_account or list_account_articles. The description does not state exclusions, fallbacks, or any selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it says nothing about effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or return format. The verb "get" only weakly implies read-only behavior, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 exceptionally short, but this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks the substance expected of a tool description, and its brevity deprives the agent of needed information, so the minimalism is a deficit, not a virtue.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'recharge status' means, what the response will contain, what constitutes a valid recharge, or any edge cases. An agent cannot reliably invoke or interpret results from this definition.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the recharge_id parameter. It does not specify the format, how to obtain the ID, allowed values, or any relationship to other resources, leaving the agent without essential context for a required parameter.

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 "Get recharge status" uses a specific verb (get) and resource (recharge status), clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_recharge and get_account through the explicit focus on status retrieval, though it is somewhat terse.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools are referenced, no conditions or exclusions are provided, and the agent is left to infer use cases entirely from the name and description.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a useful behavioral detail: no API key is required. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape, rate limits, or what happens with accounts that have no articles.

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 extremely concise, with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one important auth detail in a single short 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete. It gives the basic purpose but leaves key invocation details, parameter meanings, and behavioral expectations unspecified.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain limit or include_content, and only weakly implies account_id through the phrase 'an account's.' This is a significant gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: listing an account's published articles. It is more specific than sibling tools like get_account or publish, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the search or lookup siblings.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving published articles for a given account, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search or lookup_account. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing instructions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: 'no API key required', meaning authentication is not needed. However, it does not describe the return value, error handling, or confirm that the operation is read-only beyond the verb 'look up'.

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 entire description is one compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Look up a public account by email; no API key required'. Every word earns its place and the most important information appears first.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what the lookup returns and what happens if the account is not found. It covers purpose, parameter, and auth, but the absence of return/error semantics leaves a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by specifying that the lookup is 'by email', giving clear functional meaning to the sole email parameter. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient semantic context.

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 states a specific verb ('Look up'), a specific resource ('public account'), and the lookup key ('by email'). It also includes a distinguishing qualifier ('public') that separates it from sibling get_account, and the auth note ('no API key required') further differentiates it from likely authenticated alternatives.

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 description implies when to use the tool: to look up a public account by email without needing an API key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_account, leaving the routing decision somewhat implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait—'idempotently update'—which signals that repeated calls with the same identity are safe. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether external_id is the idempotency key, how expiration works, or what auth or content constraints apply.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the idempotency property. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices valuable operational detail.

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 tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too thin. It does not clarify parameter semantics, idempotency key usage, URL behavior, expiration format, or return expectations, so an agent lacks enough context to call it correctly.

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, but it does not explain any of the five parameters. The terms title, content, url, expires_at, and external_id are left entirely to name inference, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it creates or updates content. The word 'idempotently' adds a meaningful behavioral distinction, but 'content' is somewhat generic and doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_account_articles or set_promotion.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_content or search. There are no prerequisites, no typical scenarios, and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a removal operation but does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it is reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. This is a notable gap for a destructive operation.

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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. 'Remove your content' contains no structural detail or enumerated behavior, so the brevity does not serve the agent's decision-making.

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?

The tool is simple with a single parameter, but the description still leaves critical context uncovered: what 'your content' means, what the content_id identifies, whether the removal is permanent, and what the outcome looks like. Without annotations or an output schema, more detail is required for appropriate use.

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% and the description does not mention the content_id parameter at all. The agent receives no added meaning beyond the parameter name and type, and the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 the verb 'remove' and identifies the resource as 'content', so the basic action is clear and distinct from sibling tools like publish or search. However, 'your content' is vague and does not specify what kind of content, whether it refers to articles, accounts, or other entities, or what distinguishes this from potential deletion of other resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, conditions, or context, and does not reference sibling tools such as publish or list_account_articles that might be relevant for content lifecycle decisions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool searches published news and messages. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered or paginated, what 'published' means, or how parameters like include_content or since affect behavior.

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 single sentence is concise and readable, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations or output schema, a one-line description is insufficient and fails to provide necessary structure or detail.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several content-related siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the query format, return shape, filtering semantics, or relationship to list_account_articles, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the four parameters (query, limit, since, include_content). Since the schema itself has no field descriptions, the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond parameter names, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('published news and messages'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_account_articles, but the phrasing does delineate a search function over published content rather than account management or publishing operations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_account_articles, lookup_account, or get_recharge. No conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does note that a zero budget pauses the promotion ('zero pauses'), which is a useful side-effect disclosure. However, it does not state whether the call overwrites an existing budget, requires an existing promotion, or returns any confirmation, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficient sentence with a semicolon separating the main action from the key behavioral note. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds only one extra detail.

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?

Despite having only two parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse for confident invocation. It omits prerequisites (e.g., content must exist), the effect of repeated calls, and what happens after success or failure. The cryptic 'zero pauses' also needs expansion to be actionable.

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 add meaning to the parameters. It clarifies that daily_budget_cents is the 'daily promotion budget' and hints that zero has special meaning. It does not directly explain content_id, though the tool name implies it identifies the promotion target.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Set') and the resource ('daily promotion budget'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_account and publish because none of them relate to promotion budgets. The trailing 'zero pauses' is a behavioral note that does not obscure the core purpose.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no context about whether the promotion must already exist. It does not name any alternative or exclusion condition. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and parameters.

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