create_true_false_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it merely says '创建判断题', which reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, success/failure conditions, or return values. An agent cannot infer what happens when the tool is called.

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), which is efficient but at the cost of missing essential information. It is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and a nested object.

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 schema, required paper_id, no output schema, no annotations), the one-line description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the workflow, how the question is associated with a paper, or what the response contains.

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 no value beyond the input schema. While the schema already describes parameters with 75% coverage, the description does not explain parameter relationships or provide usage context. It is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.

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 '创建判断题' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (true/false question), which matches the tool name. However, it is very brief and does not provide additional context that would help an agent understand the scope or distinguish among sibling tools, though the resource type is distinct.

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. There are many sibling create_* tools, and the description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this specific tool.

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