借阅图书

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guardrail—user confirmation is mandatory before execution—which is not available from annotations or schema alone. It does not detail side effects like inventory changes, but the availability wording partially implies them.

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 compact sentence with the action stated first and the confirmation requirement after. No filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter checkout tool with an output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by stating what happens if the book is unavailable or how confirmation is elicited, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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 does not explicitly explain the roles of book_id and member_id. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory, and 'available book' implies book_id should refer to a borrowable copy, so there is minimal but useful implicit guidance.

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 a specific action, '借阅' (checkout), with a clear resource, '一本可用图书' (an available book), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like return_book, search_books, and audit_inventory. It also adds a condition beyond the title: the book must be available.

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 gives a clear execution context: borrow an available book, and user confirmation is required before execution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the domain and sibling tool names make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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