create_fill_blank_question

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create fill-in-the-blank question' and omits any information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return value. The agent cannot infer non-obvious behavior.

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 characters in Chinese). While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not optimally helpful.

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 (nested FillBlankQuestion object, multiple optional parameters) and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not mention required fields like paper_id and question, nor does it explain the structure of the question object.

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 high (75%), meaning the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so it meets the baseline but does not improve understanding.

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 '创建填空题' clearly indicates the action (create) and the resource (fill-in-the-blank question). It is specific enough to know what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from other question creation tools like create_single_choice_question. The name already conveys this, so the description adds minimal value.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_multiple_choice_question, create_code_question). The description lacks context for choosing this specific question type.

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