anjian_create_assessment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does state one key behavioral fact: '不会运行网络检查' (will not run network checks), which signals this is a lightweight creation-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after creation, whether existing assessments are affected, or whether this requires prior authorization validation.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope, followed by the critical caveat about not running network checks. No wasted words, though it could arguably include a bit more param guidance without bloating.

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?

This is a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% param coverage. For such a complex tool, the description should explain return values, what constitutes a successful creation, how the authorization_reference parameter is used, and the format expectations for dates/ports. The description is significantly under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions '目标、端口和有效期' (target, ports, valid period) which maps to 'target', 'allowed_ports', and 'valid_until' params, but ignores 'authorization_reference', 'allow_subdomains', 'allow_private_network', and 'valid_from'. Several parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their format/semantics (e.g., date formats, port syntax).

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 uses specific verbs and resources: '创建严格限定目标、端口和有效期的授权评估' (create an authorized assessment strictly limited by target, ports, and validity period). It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like anjian_run_assessment or anjian_quick_assess by emphasizing '创建' (create) and the restricted scope.

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 implies usage via '创建...授权评估' but does not explicitly state when to use this versus anjian_quick_assess or anjian_run_assessment. The mention that it '不会运行网络检查' (will not run network checks) is a distinguishing factor but there's no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to guidance.

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