estimate_originality

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully explain behavior. It discloses that the tool compares against the user's own draft history and is not official. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if history is empty. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences in Chinese that capture purpose, scope, and limitation. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has few parameters and no output schema. The description explains what it does and its limitations but omits details about the return format (e.g., score, label) and how the result can be used. Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but not rich.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema; it only restates concepts already present (e.g., comparing against history). Therefore, the standard baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool name 'estimate_originality' is self-explanatory, and the description clearly states it assesses originality of content to assist in deciding whether to mark as 'original'. It distinguishes from official WeChat check and implies a scope limited to user's own drafts, which differentiates it from sibling tools like import_source or save_to_wechat_draft.

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 provides clear context: this is a self-assessment for marking content as original, based on user's draft history. It explicitly warns that it cannot replace WeChat's official plagiarism check, giving a clear limitation. However, it does not directly compare with alternative tools among siblings, though siblings perform different functions.

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