uof_custom_preview_workflow

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

Discloses the non-destructive simulation behavior and that it does not actually submit. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adequately explains behavioral traits. Could be improved by mentioning the output or return format, but overall 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?

Extremely concise: two main sentences plus a note. Front-loaded with primary purpose and usage. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage, and parameter equivalence. The note about web form validation adds useful context. Slightly incomplete regarding what the tool returns, but output schema fills that gap.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by stating that parameters are exactly the same as apply_form, which clarifies equivalence. This contextual insight raises the score above baseline 3.

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 it simulates the approval workflow without actual submission ('模擬簽核流程走向，不會真的起單'), specifying verb (simulate) and resource (workflow preview). It distinguishes itself from sibling uof_custom_apply_form by noting identical parameters.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: '呼叫 apply_form 正式起單**之前**，用相同參數先驗證流程與簽核路徑是否正確' (before calling apply_form to verify the workflow and approval path). Provides clear usage context and alternative (apply_form for actual submission).

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