find_name_variants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: the tool is advisory only and performs no merge ('不合并'), and it invokes a model ('会调用模型'), warning of latency/cost and likely non-deterministic output. It does not say whether anything is persisted, whether the scan is bounded by the saved run, or what permissions apply.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, followed by the two behavioral caveats, so an agent can extract the essentials from the opening clause alone.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no annotations, no nested objects), but there is no output schema, so the description should hint at the return shape. '只给建议' implies suggestions rather than applied changes, yet nothing indicates whether results are grouped pairs, a ranked list, or a stored artifact.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains saved_as as a run name from list_runs or build_ontology. The description adds nothing about how that run scopes the variant search. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the work.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: find alternate spellings/writings of what may be the same thing within one object class. The scope ('同一类对象里') is stated, which lets an agent distinguish this from a general instance lookup. It does not name any sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrases '可能是' and '只给建议、不合并' suggest this is a pre-merge reconnaissance step, i.e. call it before deciding to consolidate names. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to whichever sibling actually performs merges, so the agent must infer the workflow position.

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