Generates a complete agent configuration from a one-sentence requirement, deriving role, domain rules, think steps, and knowledge. Optionally writes the configuration to a specified agent directory.
一句话需求自动推导 Agent 配置（角色+域规则+think+knowledge）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_dir | No | 可选：落盘到指定 Agent 目录（默认不落盘，只返回配置） | |
| requirement | Yes | 一句话需求（必填，如「回答金融合规问题的专家」） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states that configuration is derived, but does not disclose side effects, whether anything is persisted, what happens when target_dir is provided, or what the returned configuration looks like. The schema partially covers persistence, but the description itself leaves mutation semantics unclear.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and lists the output components, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
For a tool with only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description plus schema covers the essentials. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of output format or side-effect details leaves noticeable gaps for an agent that needs to predict the behavior fully.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description only reinforces the purpose of 'requirement' and does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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's action: automatically deriving an Agent configuration from a one-sentence requirement, and specifies the derived components (role + domain rules + think + knowledge). It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling creation/composition tools.
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 phrase '一句话需求' implies the tool is for concise, natural-language requirements, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_entity or sofagent_compose. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.