responsive_scaling

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as what the tool modifies, side effects, or requirements. The description is essentially just the title.

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?

Extremely under-specified; a single phrase does not provide enough information. This is not conciseness but omission.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the tool's functionality, prerequisites, or return value.

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 descriptions cover 80% of parameters (in Chinese), but the tool description adds no extra meaning. It merely repeats the concept of responsive scaling without elaborating on how parameters like target, baseSize, minSize, maxSize, or unit are used.

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?

Description is '响应式缩放' (responsive scaling), which is vague. It does not specify what exactly is scaled or how, and does not differentiate from siblings like responsive_breakpoint or responsive_orientation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools, the agent has no hints about selection criteria or context.

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