规划 OCR 容量基准

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool only creates configuration and private sample plans, and it will mark itself as deferred if production OCR is running, ensuring it doesn't consume current task resources. This discloses non-destructive side effects and deferral behavior, though it could elaborate on additional side effects or requirements.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, then adds two important safety behaviors. It is concise with no redundant information, earning a top score.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but lacks details on what the plan contains or how parameters affect the plan. However, an output schema exists, which likely covers return values, so the description is adequate but not complete. It is a baseline-viable description with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly name or explain any parameters. It indirectly hints at 'threads' and 'workers' (likely candidates for candidate_threads and max_workers), but this is vague and insufficient for a 6-parameter tool. The description adds minimal value over the schema, so a low score is warranted.

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 function: planning isolated OCR throughput benchmarks for 1/2/3/4 threads with single and multi-worker configurations. It uses a specific verb ('规划' / plan) and resource ('OCR 容量基准' / OCR capacity baseline), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'start_ocr_capacity_profile' by emphasizing this is the planning step that only creates configurations and sample plans.

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 provides clear context: it plans only, creates private sample plans, and defers if production OCR is running, indicating when it is safe to run. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the 'planning only' orientation and deferral condition effectively guide when to use this tool versus starting or activating a profile.

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