guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the step-by-step behavior, the interaction pattern, and the return of a next question with options. It also explains parameter roles. It does not cover destructive side effects, but that seems irrelevant for a wizard.

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 well-structured: a concise definition, interaction explanation, a detailed but not bloated example flow, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (purpose and usage pattern) 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?

Given the wizard's complexity and 0% schema coverage, the description is quite complete. It covers the flow, parameter roles, and return of a question. An output schema exists, so return value details are likely covered elsewhere. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or final result format, but overall adequate.

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%, but the description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: 'step' for current step, 'value' for user answer, 'device' only needed at the device step. Example calls illustrate usage. This adds deep semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 defines the tool as a guided power estimation wizard that collects parameters step by step. It uses the verb '引导式功耗评估向导' and distinguishes itself from siblings by its interactive step-by-step nature. The example flow further clarifies its 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 explicitly states that each call returns the next question for the user and that the AI agent must present questions and collect answers. It provides a typical flow and parameter explanations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'estimate' or 'power'.

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