sect

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions key behaviors like cooldowns, realm requirements, and management restrictions, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., data changes, logging), error handling, or idempotency. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 fairly concise given the complexity, using a structured list of actions and parameters. It is front-loaded with a title and overview. However, it is somewhat verbose due to bilingual (Chinese and English) content and emoji, which could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

The description explains all actions and parameters well, but does not cover return values or output schema (though an output schema exists). It also lacks error scenarios or what happens if prerequisites are not met. For a multi-action tool with complex logic, this leaves some gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in input schema properties). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose and when it's required: action options, sect_name for info/create/join, motto for create, target_user and manage_action for manage, username for operator identity, and top_n for leaderboard count. All seven parameters are clearly defined.

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 handles a 'Sect System' with explicit actions: 'Create, join, manage, and view cultivation sects.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'leaderboard' (which might be a separate tool) by showing that leaderboard is an action within this tool, and other cultivation tools are different. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 detailed usage guidance for each action, including prerequisites (e.g., 'create requires at least 结丹期 realm'), cooldown ('leave has 7-day cooldown'), and role restrictions (e.g., only sect leader can transfer). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like the standalone 'leaderboard' tool, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool's leaderboard action vs. the sibling tool.

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