create_iesapp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation ('新建'), implying it's a write/mutation tool, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an IES ID). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that states the action, location, and purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters).

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?

Given the complexity (a creation tool with 12 nested parameters) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, errors), or reference the output schema (which exists but isn't mentioned). For a tool of this complexity, the description should provide more guidance to complement the structured data.

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 description mentions no parameters at all, while the input schema has 1 parameter ('cfg') that is a complex nested object with 12 sub-properties. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema itself has descriptions for all properties, but the tool description doesn't reference them), the description fails to add any semantic context beyond what's in the schema, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's property descriptions.

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 action ('新建一个 IES 实例' - create an IES instance) and the resource ('在指定的workspace中' - in a specified workspace), and mentions the purpose ('用户可在该 IES 实例上进行分析' - users can perform analysis on this IES instance). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_workspace_bioos' or 'check_ies_status', but the purpose is clear and specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workspace), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_workspace_bioos' (for creating workspaces) or 'check_ies_status' (for monitoring IES instances). The context is implied but not explicit.

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