文案合规检测

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the credit deduction per call, the two-tier risk output, and a warning against duplicate submissions. It does not mention async behavior, but that is covered in the schema's waitSeconds parameter description, so a 4 is warranted.

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 three sentences: first states the core action and output, second lists applicable content types, third covers cost and caution. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy or padding.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, but the schema already explains parameter details thoroughly. The description adds necessary context about the pre-check use case, supported text types, and cost. It could mention the asynchronous retrieval flow (get_check_result), but that is already in the schema, making the description complete enough.

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 schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, including detailed explanations for all 7 parameters (e.g., platform, sceneMode, waitSeconds). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: 对一段文案做发布前合规预检, with a specific verb (预检) and resource (文案). It also specifies the output (两档风险明细、法条依据与修改建议), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_image/check_video (different media) and fix_text (fixing, not checking).

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 provides explicit scenarios (短视频脚本、口播稿、短剧剧本、投放素材文案、商品标题详情等) and a specific caution (同一段文案不要重复提交). It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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