writing_compose

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the internal matrix method and a quality goal (“高信噪比、零 AI 假人味”), but it does not describe the output format, determinism, side effects, or any operational constraints.

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 definition is a single dense sentence with no wasted text. It is compact, though the method is front-loaded before the core action.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: return shape, output format, and when to choose this tool over siblings are all missing. It names output types but does not make the tool fully callable from context alone.

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 100%, and the description adds conceptual meaning by mapping persona/platform/scenario/tone to “谁×在哪×为什么说×口吻”. It does not explain the required topic parameter, but it still adds useful semantic framing beyond the 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 states a specific verb (“生成”) and resource (“提示词约束或内容骨架”) and names the 5D matrix method. It is clear enough to distinguish from a lint or rubric tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the siblings.

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?

It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus writing_lint, writing_rubric, or groups_list. The usage context must be inferred from the purpose alone.

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