lanhu_analyze_design

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

无注解信息，描述承担全部行为透明度负担。描述了分析并返回UI结构，但未说明是否只读、权限要求、错误处理或行为副作用，深度不足。

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?

描述为一句中文，简洁且前部聚焦，无冗余内容。但缺少结构化分点或使用提示，略欠精细。

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?

工具具有输出模式但描述未提及返回值或使用场景；虽无需解释输出格式，但平台调整含义及参数配合逻辑可更充分。整体尚可但有提升空间。

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?

输入模式已100%描述参数（url、target_platform、design_name_or_index），描述未在模式之外增加额外语义信息，符合基线3分。

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?

描述明确说明工具用于分析指定设计稿并返回调整后的UI结构，动词和资源清晰。与同类工具如lanhu_get_designs（列举设计稿）和lanhu_get_design_assets（获取素材）有明显区分，用途一目了然。

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?

描述未明确说明何时使用此工具而非其他工具，也未提供排除条件。只能通过工具名称和上下文推断，缺乏直接的when-to-use指导。

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