技术图理解

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 only states 'interpret' without detailing behaviors (e.g., whether it generates text or structured output, how it handles unclear diagrams, or any limitations). The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with key information. However, it could be slightly longer to include more context without becoming verbose. Every word earns its place, but the brevity limits completeness.

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 has 5 parameters, a required image, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits details about supported image formats, return types, or how it differs from similar image analysis tools. The description is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the tool's purpose. It does not explain parameter usage or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool's purpose: interpreting technical diagrams (architecture, flowchart, UML, ER, sequence diagrams). It specifies the resource ('technical diagram') and verb ('interpret'). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the list of diagram types provides enough context to distinguish from general image analysis or error-specific tools.

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 implies usage ('Use when you need to read a technical diagram') but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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