汉字转拼音

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral signal beyond the schema — automatic handling of common polyphonic characters (多音字) — but says nothing about how non-Chinese or mixed input is treated, whether it errors or passes through, or any limits.

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 compact sentence with the resource conversion front-loaded and the output modes trailing as qualifiers. Zero filler and nothing repeated.

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 small 3-parameter pure function this covers purpose and output variants adequately, and no output schema is needed to explain a string result. The main residual gap is the return shape — whether pinyin comes back as one joined string or per-character segments — which is left for the agent to discover.

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 67% and both enum parameters (mode, tone) already document themselves in the schema, including the 'symbol' default. The description restates those same options in prose and adds no new meaning; the required 'text' parameter remains undescribed in both places (e.g. accepted length or mixed-language behavior).

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 states a precise verb+resource (把中文转换为拼音) and enumerates the actual output variants (带声调/数字声调/无声调/首字母), plus the polyphonic-character handling. No sibling tool overlaps this function, and an agent can tell exactly what it produces without opening the schema.

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 self-evident for a pure conversion utility and the listed output modes tell the agent which variant to pick. There are no overlapping siblings to disambiguate against, but the description never states exclusions or edge-case conditions (non-Chinese characters, empty strings), so it stops short of a 5.

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