add_creep_function

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

Annotations provide no meaningful behavioral signals (all false), and the description only says 'Add' without disclosing effects, whether existing functions are overwritten, validation rules, or return behavior. For a mutating tool this is a notable gap.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a clean Args structure. The bilingual repetition adds length but is not wasteful; it aids clarity for mixed-language users.

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?

For a simple add-operation with three parameters, the description documents the parameters adequately but omits usage guidance, behavioral effects, and any return/result information. With no output schema and no annotation support, the definition is only minimally 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It compensates well by explaining each argument, especially creep_data with its expected format '[[time(days), coefficient], ...]' and Chinese translations. Scale_factor gets only a minimal 'Scale factor' gloss, preventing a 5.

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 opens with 'Add user-defined creep function', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling functions like add_shrink_function and add_spectrum_function by naming 'creep function' explicitly.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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