create_code_question

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is only 3 characters, offering no behavioral insights. Important behaviors (e.g., the tool creates a question within a paper, requires program_setting with code_answer and test cases, modifies the paper's question list) are entirely absent from the description, relying solely on the input schema.

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?

At 3 characters, the description is extremely short, but for a complex tool with many nested parameters and sibling distinctions, this is under-specification. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary context; a slightly longer description that summarizes key aspects would be more valuable.

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 high complexity (nested objects, many fields, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not mention return values, prerequisites (e.g., existing paper), or the effect on the paper's question list. The schema provides detail but the description fails to provide a holistic overview.

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%, meaning all parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not compensate or enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 '创建编程题' clearly states the action (create) and resource (programming question), but does not distinguish it from other create_*_question tools in the sibling list. A more specific description highlighting unique aspects (e.g., 'Creates a coding question with test cases and program settings') would improve differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_multiple_choice_question or create_fill_blank_question. Sibling tools suggest a context of exam question creation, but no explicit usage context is given.

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