respond_anti_calc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It usefully discloses that the tool returns 'sent' and then waits for results, and that false means abandoning the phase, but it omits error handling, permission requirements, and the consequences of abandoning.

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 two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the boolean semantics plus return/wait behavior. It contains no filler and every part adds useful information.

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 simple two-parameter phase response with no output schema, the description covers the core action, both boolean branches, and that it returns 'sent' before waiting. It still leaves open what result arrives after waiting and what abandoning implies, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 50%: revision is documented in the schema, while participate has no schema description. The description compensates by defining participate=false as abandon and true as participate, adding meaning beyond the bare boolean type.

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 the specific action: responding during the anti-calculation phase, and defines both boolean branches (participate=false abandons, true participates). This makes the tool distinguishable from generic chat/card siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like respond_cha.

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?

It identifies the relevant phase ('反算阶段') and explains how the required participate parameter selects between abandoning and participating. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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