souyun_rhyme

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the behavioral trait '免token' (token-free), and enumerates the query categories, but does not disclose return format, error behaviors, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the tool name and core function, with zero filler words. It efficiently communicates the tool's scope despite using slashes to compress multiple features.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It does not mention the output shape or how the various qtype modes manifest in results, and it lacks alternate-tool guidance, leaving the agent under-informed for invocation.

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 100% with both 'char' and 'qtype' described in detail, including the qtype enum values. The description adds limited semantic value beyond the schema—it names the functions but does not clarify parameter formats or edge cases, so baseline 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 opens with '搜韵韵典：查字所属韵部、词末/词首典故、句末诗例' which clearly specifies a lookup action (查) on the rhyme dictionary resource, and lists three distinct, specific functions (rhyme category, word-boundary allusions, line-end examples), differentiating it from sibling poetry tools like souyun_poem and souyun_couplet.

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 use when rhyme-related information is needed ('查字所属韵部') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The 'qtype' parameter is documented in the schema, but the description does not direct the agent to specific qtype values.

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