报错截图诊断

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's outputs (root cause, verbatim text, location, fix steps) but does not discuss edge cases (e.g., non-error images), required permissions, rate limits, or behavior details. The parameter descriptions add some behavioral info (e.g., vision model deep reasoning via 'thinking'), but the main description is moderately transparent.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, followed by usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It clearly states core function and usage context. It could mention multi-source image support (from parameter description), but the output schema likely covers return structure. Overall, it provides sufficient information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The main description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but the schema descriptions are already thorough (e.g., image input options, region format, detail levels). The description adds no further meaning, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the tool's purpose: analyze error/exception screenshots and provide root cause, verbatim error text, location, and actionable fix steps. It also explicitly states when to use it ('处理崩溃/红屏/堆栈截图时使用'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like image_analysis (generic) or extract_text (text extraction only).

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 includes explicit context for when to use the tool ('crash/red screen/stack screenshots'), which helps the agent select it appropriately. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, though the sibling context makes the distinction clear.

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