generate_inputs_json_template_bioos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions querying and generating a template, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication (implied by ak/sk parameters but not stated), potential rate limits, or what the generated template looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core action in a single sentence. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the tool's primary function. However, the lack of additional context or structure (e.g., bullet points for key points) slightly limits its effectiveness, though it's not overly verbose.

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 tool's complexity (involves querying and generating templates for workflows), the absence of annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but misses behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, error handling). The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should address usage scenarios and prerequisites more clearly.

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 adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents all parameters (workspace_name, workflow_name, ak, sk, endpoint) thoroughly. The description doesn't explain what 'cfg' contains or how parameters interact, but since the schema covers everything adequately, the baseline score 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: '查询' (query) and '生成' (generate) an inputs.json template for a Bio-OS workflow. It specifies the resource (Bio-OS workflow) and the output (input parameter template). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compose_input_json' or 'validate_workflow_input_json', which may have overlapping functions.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies usage for workflows already imported into Bio-OS, but offers no explicit when/when-not scenarios or alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'compose_input_json' or in conjunction with 'validate_workflow_input_json', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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