create_mindmap

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does (creates a mind map) without any information on side effects, permissions, overwrite behavior, return values, or limitations. This is completely opaque for a creation operation.

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 extremely short, which is efficient, but it is under-specified to the point of being a restatement of the tool name. It does not earn its place by adding any useful information. A concise description should convey essential context, not merely translate the name.

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?

This tool has a complex schema with 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations. The description provides no information about return values, behavioral side effects, or usage context. It is completely inadequate for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this tool.

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 input schema is highly detailed with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but the schema's per-property descriptions (e.g., '中心主题文本', '分支层级（1为主分支）') provide sufficient semantics for an agent to understand the meaning of each field. The description does not compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the schema.

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 '创建思维导图' literally translates to 'Create mind map', which is a direct restatement of the tool name. It provides no additional specification or distinction from sibling tools like create_diagram, create_flowchart, or create_org_chart. A tautology does not help an agent understand what makes this tool unique.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where a mind map is appropriate, or exclusions (e.g., when to use create_diagram instead). For an agent choosing among many diagram creation tools, this is a critical gap.

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