huoQuShiJieGuan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '获取' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, what happens when the requested 类型 does not exist, or what the response contains. Only the bare minimum is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a one-phrase description, an agent lacks the context needed to call this confidently — particularly which 类型 values are valid and what a successful or failed lookup returns.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own '设定类型' label, and notably does not enumerate valid type values (0 enums), which would have been the highest-value addition.

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 '获取世界观设定' states a clear verb (获取/get) and resource (世界观设定/worldview setting), which is useful given the tool name is transliterated pinyin. However, it essentially restates the name and adds no distinguishing detail against siblings like 设置世界观 or 获取人物.

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 versus the many sibling getters/setters (获取人物, 设置世界观, 获取剧情线, etc.). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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