sw_probe_scenario

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses internal behavior (num_rb compressed to 24, SSB measurement off), equivalence guarantees (bit-identical geometry for specific RBs), runtime reduction (~1/8), what is returned, and what is not_available. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 well-structured with a hook, technical details, return info, limitations, and parameter explanations. It is slightly verbose but every section serves a purpose. Front-loaded with the key use case. Not overly wordy for the complexity covered.

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 description is complete for a probe tool: it explains what it does, what it returns, what it cannot provide, and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail, and the description covers the non-obvious limitations and safety nuances.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It includes a dedicated '参数' section explaining preset (referencing sw_list_presets), config (as overrides), and num_samples (with guidance on sample sizes for different percentiles). This fully adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: "花几十秒看清一个场景长什么样，再决定要不要花几十分钟正式跑" (spend tens of seconds to preview a scenario before committing to a long formal run). It contrasts with the formal generation path and names the resource (scenario), making it distinct from siblings like sw_generate.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this to decide whether to run a full generation. It also states when not to use it: "这些必须跑正式生成，别拿探测结果替代" (these must run formal generation, don't substitute probe results), giving clear when/when-not boundaries.

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