b-gen

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: line-by-line reading, interval between tasks, and resume via progress recorded in .bgen_progress.json. However, it does not disclose error handling, output behavior, or side effects of execution, which are relevant for a batch tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clearly formatted parameter list. Every sentence adds value, including defaults and task-specific constraints. No filler or 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?

For a batch engine with 6 parameters and multiple task types, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameters, file formats, and resume behavior. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It lacks details on failure handling and sequential execution, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter, including task types with per-line payload formats (e.g., g-pic/i-pic expect one prompt per line, p-pic expects 'prompt | reference path'), defaults for interval/size/n, and conditional applicability of size/n. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '通用批量引擎：从 .txt/.md 文件逐行读取任务并批量执行' (generic batch engine reading tasks line by line from .txt/.md files and executing them in batch). It also mentions interval and resume support, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling single-task tools like g-pic or r-vid.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when you need to batch-execute tasks listed in a file, with optional interval and resume. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the siblings, but the batch-engine framing and the task-type parameter give clear usage context. Without explicit exclusions, a 4 is appropriate.

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