fgui_create_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key default behaviors: '默认打开但不保存' (opens by default but does not save) and '重名时默认拒绝' (duplicate names are rejected by default), which go beyond what the schema reveals. However, it omits other side effects such as whether the component is added to the active document or requires prior project setup.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and uses semicolons to add default behaviors. Every clause adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it highly efficient for the agent to parse.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 10 parameters and no annotation support, and the description only explains a subset of behaviors. It does not cover packaging, folder structure, exported flags, or extension relationships, making it incomplete for fully autonomous invocation. The complexity of the tool demands a richer description.

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?

There is zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 10 parameters. It only indirectly references package_name ('在指定包中'), open_after_create ('默认打开'), and auto_rename/naming conflict ('重名时默认拒绝'). Parameters like width, height, exported, folder_path, extension_id, and create_folders are entirely unaddressed, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 creates a new component document in a specified package. The verb '新建' (create) plus resource '组件文档' (component document) and scope '在指定包中' (in specified package) makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like fgui_create_button or fgui_insert_object.

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 implies this tool is for creating components but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as fgui_create_button or fgui_open_document. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites, leaving users to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.

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