critique

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool critiques and finds problems, but does not mention that it can simulate multiple expert advisors (as indicated by the 'advisors' parameter), how detailed the critique is, whether it is read-only, or what the output format looks like. These gaps leave the agent uncertain about expected side effects and output structure.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and goal. However, it is slightly terse and could mention the optional experts or dimensions without becoming verbose. It earns a 4 because it is efficient but not maximally informative.

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?

The tool has three parameters including a complex enum of 38 expert advisors, yet the description does not explain what the 'advisors' parameter does or how it affects the critique. There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the output structure. The description is too minimal for this tool's richness, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but since the schema already documents 'design' as the input and 'advisors' and 'dimensions' as optional lists with enumerated values, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It adds no extra meaning but does not need to.

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 states the tool's purpose: critically evaluate a design from multiple dimensions to identify problems and improvements. It uses a specific verb ('审视' - examine) and resource (方案 - proposal), but it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'review' or 'consult' that may have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as roundtable, consult, review, brainstorm, or suggest. The description implies it is for design review but provides no exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose between this and similar tools.

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