开始异策：独立出策

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

Annotations are all false/empty hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals major traits: instances cannot access host history/files/network, the service does not generate strategy and requires no API key, it returns three independent jobs plus host instructions, it avoids silent truncation by asking the user to narrow scope, and it requires a subsequent strategize_submit call. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and preconditions and follows a logical order, but it is long and repeats schema-level instructions such as not passing file paths and not fabricating background. Most sentences add operational value for a nuanced orchestration tool, but the text could be tightened and structured more crisply.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers prerequisites, edge cases such as missing context and overlong material, direct-judgment requests, the follow-up flow via strategize_submit, and key constraints such as no API key and no strategy generation. Nothing material needed to call the tool correctly is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: context must not be just file paths, links, or 'see above'; anaphora must be expanded; facts, speculation, and unknowns must be distinguished; user corrections must be preserved; and long material should be condensed without silent truncation. Request_id is not expanded in the description, but is adequately documented 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 opening clause '对重要决策启动三家独立出策' states a specific action and object, reinforced by '返回三个独立 job 和宿主执行指令'. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from strategize_submit or strategize_verdict beyond naming the follow-up call, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 gives concrete preconditions and contextual rules: use it for important decisions, must provide problem and context, clarify when key information is missing, proceed with caveats when the user asks for a direct judgment, and call strategize_submit after host execution. However, it never states when to prefer the sibling tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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