create_attachment_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the tool's purpose without any behavioral details such as side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or required permissions. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 extremely concise (4 Chinese characters) but lacks informative content. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; the tool earns a low score due to under-specification.

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 4 parameters, a nested object type, and no output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context such as return values, error scenarios, or typical usage flow. It is completely inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 75%, and the schema itself contains detailed descriptions for most parameters (e.g., paper_id, question fields). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the score is at baseline 3.

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 '创建附件题' indicates the tool creates an attachment question, but it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like create_code_question or create_fill_blank_question. The verb 'create' is clear, but the resource type 'attachment question' is ambiguous without further context.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_question or batch_create_questions, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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