deepseek_evaluate_idea

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does state the evaluation axes, which adds some context beyond the name, but it does not disclose whether the output is a score, prose assessment, or structured report, nor does it mention potential latency or DeepThink implications.

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?

A single, compact sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and evaluation criteria. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

The definition is sufficient for basic invocation since the one required parameter is well-documented. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still cannot tell what form the evaluation will take or how detailed the result will be, so the description is not fully complete.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and identifies a clear resource ('technical idea or research proposal') with explicit criteria ('innovation, feasibility, and potential impact'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like deepseek_code_review, deepseek_explain, and deepseek_chat.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you want an assessment of an idea or proposal. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it compare against alternatives such as deepseek_chat for open-ended discussion or deepseek_code_review for code-specific feedback.

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