compose_paper

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it creates a real paper (真落库), assigns ownership, and avoids false success by returning {ok:false, reason} on failure. It also notes that lesson preparation papers are private and never set public.

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 concise yet comprehensive, using clear sections and symbols (🔴) to highlight important constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input semantics, optional parameters, behavior, return format, and error handling. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, explaining the outline structure, the role of subjectId, the optional lesson_id/slot_seq pair binding, and error scenarios. This compensates for the schema's lack of description coverage.

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: composing a paper deterministically from the real question bank according to an outline and storing it. It specifies the resource (biz_paper) and ownership (current teacher). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_paper or compose_special.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (e.g., outline-based composition, optional binding to lesson slots) and notes that subjectId must come from list_kg_tree. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it.

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