aweme_2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The single-word description 'aweme' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, side effects, or expected behavior. This is completely inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

While technically concise with a single word, this represents severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey any useful information and doesn't follow the principle that every sentence should earn its place—here, the single word doesn't earn its place at all.

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 name suggests it's part of a family of similar tools (aweme_1 through aweme_5) and the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no context about what differentiates this tool from its siblings or what operation it performs, making it impossible for an agent to use 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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters requiring semantic explanation.

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 'aweme' is a tautology that merely repeats the tool name without explaining what the tool does. It provides no verb or resource specification, and fails to distinguish this tool from its many siblings (aweme, aweme_1, aweme_3, etc.). This leaves the agent completely guessing about the tool's 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple aweme-related tools in the sibling list (aweme, aweme_1 through aweme_5), the absence of any context or differentiation makes it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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