find_series_parts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool fuses three signals including forward dependencies, reverse author queries, and naming pattern recognition, which gives some insight into its operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it may have (e.g., API calls), or error behavior. This is moderate transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, with a clear main purpose followed by a bulleted list of three signal paths. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the method easy to scan. No wasted words.

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 description outlines the core function and the three signals used, but lacks details on how these signals are combined, edge cases, or interpretation of results. While an output schema exists and can clarify return values, the description alone leaves some gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with clear explanations. The tool description's mention of '命名模式识别' aligns with the aggressive parameter's schema description but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: identifying the complete series (all Parts) that a given image belongs to. The verb '识别' (identify) and the resource '一张图' (an image/workshop item) are specific, and the description differentiates this tool from the campaign-related siblings by focusing on series parts discovery.

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 implies usage: to find all parts of a series for a workshop item. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. The three fusion signals hint at the approach but not the decision criteria for when this tool is appropriate.

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