library_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the matching threshold (only 3+ char or letter-containing meme names are recognized), but says nothing about what happens on a hit vs miss, what data comes back, or what '怎么接' (how to chain/continue) actually implies — a vague hint at side-effects without substance.

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 detection semantics are front-loaded and compact, but the closing sentence ('用不用、怎么接，由你自己决定') consumes a full sentence while conveying almost no actionable information, so the text is not fully earning 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?

For a one-parameter detection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what a caller receives (matches? boolean? annotated sentence?) and how it differs from library_lookup. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to predict 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?

The single parameter 'message' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description compensates by framing it as '一句话' — the sentence to be scanned for library memes. That is adequate to know what to pass, though it says nothing about length limits, encoding, or handling of multi-sentence input.

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 operation: detect whether a sentence contains a meme (梗) that is in the library's collection, plus a concrete recognition constraint (names of 3+ characters or containing letters). It does not distinguish this 'scan' from the sibling 'library_lookup', leaving the boundary between detecting-in-text and looking-up ambiguous.

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 only guidance is '用不用、怎么接，由你自己决定' — it explicitly delegates the decision back to the caller rather than saying when this tool is appropriate or when to prefer library_lookup/library_browse. The use case must be inferred from the purpose sentence.

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