fanqie_imitation_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that scores come from a six-dimension formula plus bonuses and explains the serial-mode formula ('连载体量×在读×更新活跃×吸量×套路×金手指'). However, it does not state whether output is sorted, what the score range or format is, or whether there are side effects, which is a notable gap for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core purpose and then give the mode variant and intended use. Every sentence adds information, though the slash-separated jargon list ('套路密度/金手指清晰') makes the description slightly harder 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?

Moderate complexity with four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema requires more detail about the score breakdown, sorting, and how rank/channel map to the modes. The description explains the 'why' and scoring dimensions, but an agent would still be guessing about the return shape and the meaning of two parameters.

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 50%: top and serial have descriptions, while rank and channel are bare enums. The description adds meaning to serial mode and to the scoring dimensions, and implies female as the default by mentioning male serial mode as a switch, but it does not explain rank (read/new/completed) or channel (female/male). The description compensates partially but not fully.

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 names a concrete operation ('仿写选书六维评分') and identifies the resource ('在读爆款') and output ('给出每本的分数拆解'), so an agent can understand the purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fanqie_ranks or fanqie_trend, but the scoring focus is distinctive enough to avoid confusion.

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?

It states the intended scenario ('用于在读爆款里筛出最适合仿写的书') and provides a conditional mode switch ('也可切男频连载母本评分'), which gives usable context. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use this tool instead of fanqie_find or fanqie_stats.

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