create_mind_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states that this writes a file to disk, whether output_path overwrites an existing file, what happens if output_path is omitted, or what permissions/format constraints apply. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, these are real gaps.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then covers the two non-obvious parameters. No filler, though the alias enumeration makes the sentence dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Given only 3 parameters and no nested objects, the missing pieces are the 'title' parameter meaning and the when-to-use positioning against convert_to_xmind, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the accepted alias keys for topics_json (children/topics/subtopics/nodes/items) and clarifies output_path is optional and absolute – genuine value beyond the schema. But it says nothing about the required 'title' parameter, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('创建思维导图' – create a mind map), which is unambiguous on its own. However it does not distinguish this from the related sibling convert_to_xmind or explain the relationship to read_xmind_file/analyze_mind_map, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 gives no when-to-use context and never names an alternative, despite a crowded sibling set containing convert_to_xmind and analyze_mind_map that plausibly overlap. An agent must guess which tool creates vs converts an existing map.

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