Find Luogu Topic Problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral details—using aliases, tag ids, deduplication, and providing match reasons—that go beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence that immediately conveys purpose and key features. Efficient and front-loaded, but could be slightly more structured with separate usage notes.

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?

With no output schema and 3 parameters, the description provides adequate context for topic and parameters, but lacks details on what the output (list of problems) contains—e.g., problem IDs, titles, or match reasons. Completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema: 'topic' is described similarly, and 'limit'/'excludeProblemIds' are not elaborated. The mention of aliases and tag ids gives some context but does not significantly enhance schema understanding.

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 finds practice problems for an algorithm topic, mentioning specific features like aliases, tag ids, deduplication, and match reasons. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'luogu_search_problems' and 'luogu_recommend_problems' by focusing on topic-based retrieval with deduplication.

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 implies usage for topic-based problem finding but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'luogu_search_problems' or 'luogu_recommend_problems'. No guidance on when not to use or specific prerequisites.

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