create_true_false_question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., creating a question in a paper), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the fact that it creates something.

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 short (one phrase). While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification. It lacks essential details such as what the tool returns, how to use it, and important caveats. The description does not earn its place because it provides almost no useful information beyond the tool name.

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 complexity of the tool (nested TrueFalseQuestion object, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. It should explain the purpose of 'paper_id', the structure of 'question', and what the response looks like. The current description leaves the agent with no contextual understanding.

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 parameters well. The description adds no additional information about parameters like 'paper_id', 'need_parse', or 'need_detail'. While the description is minimal, it does not detract; however, it also does not add value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (true/false question). It is a specific verb+resource combination, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_single_choice_question' or 'create_multiple_choice_question', but the tool name itself provides that distinction.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or conditions for use. The agent is given no information about typical scenarios, required permissions, or when to prefer this tool over other question creation tools.

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