aweme_3

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. However, it adds nothing about what the tool does, its effects (e.g., read vs. write), permissions, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's 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?

While the description is extremely concise (just one word), it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to convey any useful information, making it ineffective despite its brevity. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that provides zero context, this tool definition is completely inadequate. The agent cannot understand the tool's purpose, behavior, or usage, making it impossible to invoke correctly in any meaningful scenario.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to compensate for any gaps, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is assigned since no parameter information is required.

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 adding any meaningful context. It provides no verb, resource, or action specification, making it impossible to understand what this tool does or how it differs from its siblings (aweme, aweme_1, aweme_2, aweme_4, aweme_5).

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 its sibling tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, alternatives, or any usage scenarios, leaving the agent with no information to make an informed selection among similar-sounding tools.

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