balance_v

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the computed outputs (EU/t, time, machine-seconds) and optional per-entry fields. It says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether it errors on unknown voltages, or how results are ordered/returned. Partial disclosure only.

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?

Two short sentences with the voltage variant front-loaded and no filler. The nested parentheticals and 'balance' shorthand reduce readability, but the text is appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, yet the description leaves the return shape only loosely sketched and defers the meaning of 'runs' to the sibling tool. For a 3-parameter computation tool this is under-specified.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It explains the voltage parameter ('概率 boost 按该电压') and hints at item-level 'machine/parallel/perfect' fields, but never explains the 'runs' structure, the 'format' parameter, or the default voltage (IV). Substantial gaps remain.

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?

It says this is 'balance plus voltage' and adds per-recipe overclocked EU/t, duration and machine-seconds, which is a distinct output from the sibling 'balance'. However, the core purpose is defined only relative to that sibling ('三栏同 balance'), so an agent reading this definition alone cannot tell what balancing actually does. The verb is implied, not stated.

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?

There is no statement of when to pick balance_v over balance, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. 'runs 同 balance' tells the agent the input shape matches, not the situation in which the voltage variant is warranted.

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