huong_dan

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 does disclose one non-obvious behavior — the empty-argument case returns the topic list — and implies a safe read operation. It says nothing about output format, permissions, or what 'business guide' content looks like, and an output schema exists to cover the return shape.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the primary instruction (read the guide first) front-loaded ahead of the discovery tip. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and a single optional parameter keeps complexity low. However, with no annotations and no parameter description, the definition leaves an agent guessing about the kind of guide content and topic naming. Adequate but with visible 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?

Schema coverage is 0%: 'chu_de' has no description. The description partially compensates by implying that the argument selects a topic and that leaving it blank lists topics, which effectively documents the parameter's semantics. That is enough to reach a baseline 3, but no format or accepted-value detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: read ('doc') the business/workflow guide ('huong dan nghiep vu') before performing a task. An agent can tell this is a documentation-lookup tool distinct from the drawing/modeling siblings. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context ('before doing a task') and a concrete usage rule: leave the argument blank to list available topics. This is a real when-to-use instruction with a discovery path. No exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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